before the jury that it's forged or false and has to be dealt with that you can stop the case as to why and let the jury keep going as to another codefendant well let me do the  case law that says that you cannot let the case go as to one defendant and not as to the other especially whenever these documents had no impact whatsoever on jeanine or in any way did was there ready any application this has anything to do with jim dineen already and if there is a mistrial it should have nothing to do with jeanine or unit you take a look at the lacquered the court says you're correct mr deepest walk and at that point by the way i'm ringback i believe i wasn't even present whenever the argument takes place about these documents because they had nothing whatsoever to do with ginny nori when i come back to the court room i'm told that there's a mistrial to the ginning or i wasn't even present whenever that was granted now the judge did say well let you argue but i've already made up my mind now but i believe that the certificate of pill billeted be granted is on the in custody issue and on the standard of if you're right we're not getting to that if you win here you get a chance to to litigate that further but you've got some real problems here because your client received no further penalty so as with mr stop loss we have to ask here which technically there was no but he order st that there be restitution paid on the state senate matter i think it was twelve thousand dollars and then secondly although it later proved to be illegal he had ordered that letters of apology be written to the state senate staffers that's that's off the table right as you said it's beck a kick by the spirit cord but but it was not part of the sentence clear a number of times that he was giving a total sentencing scheme and in giving the total sentencing scheme i mean what happened here is obvious just now  thought that it was possible ready because of the double jeopardy argument that that state senate those state senate charges are going to go away as i understand it and under pennsylvania law it is the written sentencing order that counts here under is about all right so you have some moral comments but what we're viewing is a written judgment a conviction and sentence that says this is no further penalty you are absolutely correct t that the order of satins does not impose a sentence because of the of the state senate charges our argument is and always has been that despite the fact that the order of satins there is not that it's no further penalty and in fact that was the sentence that resulted from that and and get us past the order in and that sense in order perhaps strategically as you are indicating lays out penalties in a certain way what allows ready us to look past that order and say hey wait a nd we think you're really opposing a sense here for this county even though you said no for the penalty your honor i don't think that there's any specific authority for that but i think that the facts of the record cry out for that in this particular case make it some kind of equitable pitch to avoid the sentencing order and and and say we we believe that the judge was really trying to hit you for this and was trying to do it in a way that would be an reviewable because of double jeopardy concerns that's what i hear you say exams are already for that and if any case is done they think that no there is no authority for that but what the what you're saying judge jordan is absolutely well i believe that there was a satins impose that judge now knew exactly what he was doing and i'm not trying to disparage just now how but he knew exactly what he was doing and that the he was in fact imposing a satins because of the state senate convictions and in order to avoid the double jeopardy argument he just pushed everything into the is a supreme court office convictions well help me out also with the standard of review here dollars is the basis on which we are on review that we're on novo review because the district court said after it said there's no excuse for the gleick but i'm determination it is irrelevant that the objections were on pylea the henderson the holding is failure to object doesn't waive your no objection and in other words ready they equate it with that arguably proper the failure to object becomes irrelevant but this isn't the case it's about whether there's a waiver of appellate rights the case isn't about standard to review and this is just an aside and in football for now i know that you know why should we treat that as as as our circuits law well because it's a well reasoned case and the footnote is reason i mean the what happened here factually was simply this there was a decision made or rather there was a report recommendation made by the magistr and quite frankly this these things went on for an awful long time that we we understand procedure ok so i'm kind of concerned if we went this route i mean you have some dictum from there and then we have an hour which i also think is a response to the party's argument rather than holding it's an aside but maybe you want to say that's persuasive my concern is if we go and say every time that a district court has a belt and suspenders approach oh this is  yeah and we if we look at this anyway it would be ok so am i wrong with would all of these wind up being under noble you then i don't know i think you're right your honor and i don't think that this could i believe that the  and sixty b is is there in large measure is it not to prevent people from failing to timely raise their objections and if they fail to timely race if every time a district judge says and i tend to agree with judge beavis that there is sort of it's almost bluer play language that says and i've looked at this on my own and would disagree anyway just sweep one in all its protections to the side and you're in denial gaulin can that really be the way the rules are supposed to work well if we're focusing on six to be one hundred there's also we're also making an argument that it was in fact excusable neglect under sixty b one what happened here and that's what i was attempting a few seconds ago to get into the what happened in essence was that say we'd we literally didn't know about it in your case you didn't know about it you made an assumption about what your assistant would do and your system made the subs you would do and and and maybe it works pretty se for you folks you know ninety nine point nine percent of the time but there was an assumption there which seems to put you kind of into nora plus land you're not just up your net you know you're you're worse off in the sense that you knew about it they were able to claim with some widget was lee we didn't know about it and still the court said no excuse a little out there you how we get around not involved the column well there was no client the commonwealth was the commonwealth the attorney for the commonwealth was actually the only person in this case there is not only an attorney there is a client and jeanine or he was the client she's the one that is that that is prejudiced by that we always with that and i think it stays in the plane air standard or it will respond to the language we've got here in nowhere to where we said yeah it's the commonwealth argues that we should nonetheless review the report recommendation to noble because if this were reviewed the ruc report recommendation that although we disagree there is no indication that the district were conducted an independent review of the entire record and a political log in obo nor was discord under any obligation to do so it seems like the implication there is that if the district court had exact it was the idea that they had there's no jurisdiction because you're not no longer serving that sentence structure or not basically put i guess put his reasoning for that conclusion in the are in his memory in order but i don't believe it i'm not sure how they could see past or and past henderson which says in that footnote for me is what lars relying on it seems to say the same thing hey district were used to noble we're going to review  charges therefore she is not serving a sentence she is not in custody pursuant to federal hate us review so therefore she cannot receive any relief on that case and what's your response mr davis qualities argument that the i take it to be that that's fundamentally unfair that that's allowing the trial judge to manipulate the sentencing order in a way that of wades the primary or one of the primary arguments she's got about the unfairness of the trial process she did have the opportunity order to appeal that to the spirit of pennsylvania they reviewed her double jeopardy client that is what her post review was entitled to you're not there's no requirement for federal havior to carry the same put the so in this arena she has to be serving a sentence and she's not serving sends their forces not entitle to review