first of all if the separate and apart from exactly what the prejudice is there's a problem in that the district court didn't adequately set out what the prejudice is in terms of same position which is he says he still has to face trial on those charges that the dischord judge said that in somewhat summary fashion but didn't consider even the implications of a dismissal without prejudice read whether whether it makes any difference and in a case where the government just reincarnates the next day makes no difference well it does make a by january th or th at the saddest conference the government already has a new indictment we can talk about whether it's premature or not but that shows pretty clearly that a they would have  title to be considered for release you know is there any reason to think he wouldn't have been subjected to pretrial detention on a new indictment as as he was in the original one he had which the government would clearly see intention where there would be a rebuttable presumption but surrendering you know having the opportunity to be released to surrender himself and to show compliance and show that that th affects is ability to you know come in through the front door of which helps in terms of trial we already know that the government didn't get a conviction for the st two trials it took three trials so it's not like it was a slam dunk to begin with so any benefit even a small benefit tends to tip that prejudice i'm sorry to have is that i understand your point about a liberty interest for whatever small amount of time he might have been now but how does this impact his ability to defend  the presentation of d n a able to come in through the front door and sit oftentimes defendants or more relaxed they don't have to get up at the jail it three o'clock in the morning non trial factors seem to just address the trial factor in some source or summary belief that it would have resulted in a conviction without going through an analysis that included those determinations regarding the implication of that dismissal with regard to the speedy trial like and also with regard to whether it results in strictly prejudice and more importantly and  as it miller was discussed that that's an unresolved issue in the circuit there has been the practice where the record is not clear with regard to that particular issue whether so let's assume that you are right about all of the counting issues ok so so we're at a point in january the seventy day clock has expired but the way the statute works but defendant can still be tried if two things happen one is that the just the st indictment is dismissed without prejudice if the government as a protective matter just flips the order and gets the new indictment immediately before the dismissal rather than immediately after just what happened here the absolutely manipulation it's an extension of another's it's one hundred and forty days instead of the seventy days by the government into the same thing immediately after the dismissal if they if they persuade the court to dismiss the  case without prejudice they can do exactly the same thing one second after the dismissal so i mean it just seems like all that's going on is the government is trying to line up their was the court daniel handled the united states this court should affirm the judgment of the district court because the district court correctly held that helen failed to demonstrate any sufficient stric prejudice from either of his attorneys handlings of the speedy trial act issues in this case beginning with the issues related to the trial counsel related to this the trial act the judge clearly held factors and found that each of them favor dismissal without prejudice as a result against that backdrop the district court found that the opponent was unable to demonstrate any prejudice related to the loss of an opportunity of a business without prejudice and for just the reasons that judge catus mentioned earlier this morning that is correct the government clearly would have reinvited this defendant and would have proceeded to conviction of this defendant just the exact same way that it had even without what would have been a dismissal without prejudice a part can point to nothing more than the minor impairment of what he characterizes as a liberty interest in the release of a any other showing that anything related to that delay or anything related to the speedy trial act would have changed the outcome there can be no finding a treatment prejudice which is what the court found here similarly for the same reasons any dismissal of the indictment without prejudice following a reading and from a direct appeal raising speedy trial if you were not of the outcome of the case government would have done the exact same thing just a few years later and re indicted the case into conviction at that point there's nothing to indicate that the quality of the evidence or the government's ability to proceed would have changed or been altered in any way and so the government would proceed exactly the same way finally with respect to the loss of or alleged deficiency or prejudice the loss of from the panel could i just ask you do you have a view on the speedy trial act question that i was engaging your opponent on your honor the government did not press the point that your honor makes which is that having secured indictment prior to the dismissal read would have been sufficient to alleviate any issues under the speedy trial act and because we didn't press that issue i'm hesitant to take it  controlling language that under the circumstances in our case if you're an indictment or information has been filed a complaint indictment or information is filed which charges i'm sorry what what's  the small piece superseding charges is the language i was reading from where it says that we were indictment information has been filed and then the subsequent indictment or complain or whatever indictment is pending at the time of the subsequent charges filed the trial should commence within the time limit for commencement of trial on the original indictment so that's the basis for my argument that it doesn't if you trigger anyone th was concerned it's ironic we're talking about the speedy trial act here because this case has gone on for nineteen years and it wasn't until you came into it in as i understand it tw that the district court four years later issued an order it was then three years getting up to us and i just want to say you've done