was held in prison for one hundred forty seven days past his maximum release date and yet he was denied even one day in court to redress this wrong the district court here in granting summary judgment because they found facts and the sixteen as far as the right amount of credit and the right i mean the guards at the prison the guys the rest of them really only as good as the paperwork is given to them by the county as that's what in accuracy of the but when it came to the judge's attention that there was a problem and that his original order wasn't being followed the way he wanted it he tried to correct that and that's why he sent the april two thousand and fifteen from the county and when eric was processed at the state system there were about ninety pages of documents that came over from the county and over fifty of those documents have dates on them indicating that area was in north and county jail as far back in time as two thousand and ten there's also his original sensing sheets were there into his of the present investigation report and then there's a disciplinary record that clearly stated it's time of entry in two thousand and ten so that so that it drives had spent a few minutes flipping through the d c fifteen file he would have found that that contradicts what was on the will you know i think it retrospect i mean in retrospect records from the county just does not explain what transpired before the north county police well that's why when dross received the order from the sentencing judge out of the blue it should have raised a red flag in his mind if everything checks out in this county forms check out to be and agree with the calculation she should have should have been asking the question receive an order from a judge out of the blue after they've already sentenced this person and this person into the system a year and a half prior to not just do a perfunctory check and then put the order in the file and they came and if you didn't understand that he he said the disorder was very big but if it was very vague then why didn't he call the court to do that and he admitted that it wouldn't have taken much time to do so ok so if we accept your argument that drawing was could have done more or if you had looked carefully at that file with the records about half of inch thick how does any of that constitute a luger difference  attack like i said he didn't really get to the heart of what the judge was was telling him to do and there were a number of other actions that he said he'd done in other cases to resolve these types of things that he did not do here he did not call the judge he did not call the county he did not raise it to simply hears of the d n c central office i could not even really if you would have been checking the file you would have found this out but aside from that he also testified and ca direct evidence of the state of mind which was that he wasn't quote unquote an advocate for the inmates that he wasn't his job wasn't to chase after credit and if you want to show her special treatment by trying to actually pursue this issue and to me that is clear that he is demonstrating that he had the mental state of deliberate indifference as to whether kerik was at the risk of unwarranted detention eric's mother didn't call and talked to draw us at some point in two thousand and fifteen we don't know the exact date but she said that there's a problem with my my son being imprisoned and even the year journeyed put in a subpoena in may two thousand and fifteen right after the april order came out on that was asking for paperwork from drys and he you know provided he fulfilled that request so office i think of fairy toweling point in this case whether one looks at it from the standpoint of deliberate indifference the actual claimed constitutional violation of amendment or whether one looks at it in terms of qualified immunity in relation to the issue of whether here is the liberty deference is the third  court issued and terminated this entire matter that issue in detail i would suggest necessary details and adequate detail gets his award i submit to you that there's a variety of ways in which a person in mr dross of this position might react but one of them that's very possible he's to address the sentence in terms of and ambit of information that bed is the sentencing order and the d c three hundred b that's all he if you wanted to expand the concept of deliberate indifference along the lines of the inquiry from judge fisher which says that you have to do some sort of  investigation or inquiry or indeed and an analysis which in the end would not entitle the prison administrator to make any changes in the sentence but would merely provide him with some basis to alert defense counsel or the court and the simple fact is if this quirk would it make it clear that it feels that mr dros was deliberately different because we didn't do that here under these particular circumstances that would be on precedented it would not be foreshadowed by any of the other cases in which deliberate indifference was found or qualified immunity was  defined by pennsylvania statute and it's the find by policy following from that statute that a prison administrative clerk is supposed to consult and determining the actual  of the sentence do not necessarily correspond with some circumstantial evidence that shows that he was in jail in a way that conflicts with the d c three hundred watts or gives you your let me may i would the circumstantial evidence well yes but there are there are in fact three cents and with every one of those there's a d c pre hundred in the ninety four pages to and in every occasion three times but documents show a specific paper that in the same ninety four pages that says credit for time served and it only discusses twenty thirteen just as the original sentence  minutes demonstrated so you're looking at this and you see how he's there's a reception twenty and he's gotten some misconducts a twenty eleven but it's every time i look there's an official document from the court as well that says twenty thirteen twenty thirteen twenty thirteen we're talking about a record squire they are very sensitive because  and lost it in the past cases where they went back and fixed the orders and change them to either provide more or less credit and those cases were in fact their actions were stanch are and those cases were reversed so they know they can't but the only thing they can do is call court but at the same time if i'm looking at this i'm thinking  don't know ali got the credit but it looks like you know in two thousand and thirteen they decided usually get to it when he was sentenced he should only get this credit i think that the question becomes whether and all he can do is check to your order in the d c three hundred b that comes with it now he gets this cryptic order it doesn't say why it's been issued it doesn't say there's a problem we think we have credit it doesn't even say go back and check the credit but the best you can get from it i think or very reasonable conclusion that they he gave her the correct advice see your attorney it's a criminal case he has public the public defender who ultimately did craft you are still your attorney talked to the judge i can't do any more for you the papers i half show he's doing it but one must not forget and one's heart goes belong in jail that's what mr drost has like to my son doesn't belong in jail so you get is she asking to have that credit examined because there's something wrong with  behavioral problems and that would seem to be ashamed of her and so you have all that going back and forth after all this quarter there is there is evidence in the record and exhibit attached to her apply brief that my colleague in the the trial court wrote exhibit x which makes it clear that the person who wrote this order and he finally apparently he knew by deuce time that the there was there were only year periods of confinement in north hampton county prison that had not been appropriately credited that only part of the credit was on the three hundred b so he wrote this order and it just says go and figure out how you can get credited but it doesn't even say that all if that's what he thought it said but what it says is give him all the credit so i can all the saturday night live routine where the retiring engineer says it is going away party you can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor so later they have a problem with the nuclear reactor and everybody is running around saying you can never put too much water  that's a regrettable statement i don't think it shows the level of a difference as much as it shows though that he has a specific role to play in this that means he has to give off  a qualification that once he receives an indication like this he didn't feel it it in the in the form of this april seventeenth order he didn't feel it man now i have to for mr one choice do i have to go beyond what the statute says i have to look at in determining whether his sentence was appropriately c officials can use but it never says that the visuals are not allowed to get to the bottom of the situation and to get to the right answer to make sure that they are following what the court has ordered and there's also no that we receive in this case that says that either the policy from the d n c was not made part of the record and there was some testimony from dross itself that that was in the ball that with their practice we don't that if this court reversed summary judgment and said there was a fact question as to deliberate indifference the notion that that would expand the concept of deliberate difference is just simply not true that we're not saying that in every case that the records official received an order of this nature or in or received a request from and made they have to open up a massive investigation in all these steps now they just have to try to resolve the issue they just the records official just has to take affirmative steps to try to resolve it that's what this court said and more versus tartly or would you draw the line  then he has a duty to make sure he understands that and he's following what the core he's actually saying instead of saying well it's vague but i think it's asking you to do nothing i'm going to do a perfunctory jack and then put it