before the conviction you know last night trips and i were talking about this particular case and i have one example his is even better i'll give you mine and then you'll you'll see why his is a much better  if you want to be a literalist that's being literal right correct your honor and if he serves one day after one day as a result of a conviction one day after the conviction that would render him eligible for cancellation of the loop because he good moral character who during a period of such a such drinks is or was during such periods being confined as a result of conviction to appeal ok let's say he got one hundred and eighty one dollars days additional then you are  either both aliens in they both committed the same and he has to do pretrial detention the nd twin comes before the tribunal and he can post bond and so he's out a it just so happens that working on coincidences here they are the they the st one serves one hundred and eighty one days we can say before the sentence is handed down in a sense hands down and says you have to serve one hundred and eighty days of both of you for the same character is i understand your argument it would mean that the st twin would be of good moral character because he served his time beforehand the nd twin would be of not good moral character because he penalty on the nd twin for exercising the bond option that was provided because he exercised the bond auction he's now penalize in so it seems to me that under your reading the consequence of deciding that yes i'd like to post bond is that if i later get a sentence then i'm stuck with bad moral character verses if i serve early and don't post bond in voluntarily undertake pretrial detention maybe despite having the financial wherewithal to avoid it then i have a shot of cancellation for removal while it and in that instance your honor if there are immigration consequences for an individual who's otherwise identical to his twin but for his decision to post bail isn't that a problem it could be a problem if person who was was paralyzed was the one who is in pretrial detention well i mean and if that but it seems that there's potential penalties on either side and it seems that there's a penalty for the one pretrial detention of maybe he'll be deemed innocent or the charges will be dropped the on the other side though for posting bond which i don't know if we have a case on point saying that that's constitutionally protected but it seems it you could at least go down that road a little bit and say that's constitutionally protected in now for exercising a potentially constitutionally protected right he faces the possibility of having almost no chance of getting cancellation removal correct  agency on issues of whether confinement as a result of the commission means what it means so so under your reading in order for your reading to be correct you have to assume then that the statute is read tempore only in that every single component about that statute eleven o seven or eleven seventeen d has a temp oral component to it because you're saying that there's that suggests that temp oral doesn't matter and so in order for your reading to be correct don't you have to convince us that this statute can only be read tempore only your honor i would us that it must be read in time tempore only only and not as we read most the law always which is tempore is a component to it but the law is built on now is then we're going ascertain legal rights as if they were in the past what about this statute i mean again if they didn't say as a result of conviction but said after the fact of conviction that moves you really closely into ok time matters but in the law or results in time strange as it may seem to understand and others don't always half to to to be linked well i would argue i mean to other extent your honor again pretrial detention you know certain certain instances cannot be you know is not the result of a convict particularly when the person is acquitted when charges are dropped but  in this case it happens to be and he was sentenced for time served and so it seems that doesn't that sentence coupled with this action the only way that you win is to convince us that this statute must why wouldn't we just after if you want to go temp or you could just say after after it's meant for temp or on it as a result of implies that there's a lot of things in play including legal things in play and as i said we have this doctor known pro tempore we go back and we  we work through results you know you can i would say i do wonder why they chose the phrase as a result but they also could have chose the phrase or explicitly provided that pretrial detention or time correct your honor if we win here he still will be in custody and as as you correctly point out it is a long road however if he has deported his chances of  make any difference if it's temporal or not but you look at one if so no person shall be regarded as or found to be a person of good moral character who during a period for which good moral character is required and has a ten year period right that's right got to be established is was one who during such periods such ten year period before right has been confined as a result of can conviction so that might argue for your position but it's not temporal because you have to include the ten years to come before well i think that any period of confinement that comes within the ten years does not require temporal connection step that would be needed for an ambiguous statute therefore the implication is that it was unambiguous right the i mean certainly didn't refer to an agency decision without engaging in the chevron analysis it had to do it would require an ambiguity so there was no ambiguity warning on it i think that the rationale of the th circuit calls were in the beautifying because they were light on the nd circuit case that went into is not just my point the bank is in the eye and a does not automatically mean that the be a has some kind of special wizard like expertise and telling us what it means it's the kind of thing two of the time as a result of what does that mean it has to have some degree of formality with it informal rule making it seems to be the bottom of the barrel as far as what will go with on chevron's so it's not just automatic whatever the agency says about having some formalization there has to be has to be a f after we get through seven and then there's eight in then there's noname there's a catch all yes your honor and the catch all says the fact quote the fact that any person is not within any of the foregoing classes shown not preclude a finding that consider this i've got to see ambiguous provision according to you and why don't you just go back and say hey you know take center is any ambiguity we've got our catch all it might according to use spit squarely into f seven right here why doesn't use its expertise its knowledge of the statute and not ignore the catchall all you want you tell us it is an expert and then it doesn't use a catch all that it seems to fit we ringback really nice we can't  and in it seems to me that just showing up and saying it can be interpreted two ways what courts have no no real power is soon as is one side comes out was one can of the construction and you come up with another congratulations we're out of the picture we're gone we're just going to do whatever be i a sense so surely our test for ambiguity isn't something is facile is one can inverse one can and surely we can scrutinize this a little more and determine our own if this is  almost all of it what we're dealing with is confinement as a result of conviction so the confinement must be caused by the conviction that because this is an issue where it is well accepted and never jurisdiction that pretrial detention can become part of the sentence imposed on conviction it effectively because as we phrase the question you said can become part of the sentence imposed is not the same as saying as a we read to tell us what the threshold is for him to give woody and deference and should be fatal marber versus madison yeah i mean i mean is it just that is it just a little bit of ambiguity you have one can in your opposing counsel has one then how thoroughly do we look to determine ambiguity it seems that you're you're advocating such a quick trigger i know why you are because you want us to defer to the agencies interpretation of result but in order to get us to defer you've got a really quick trigger for ambiguous and i'm just asking what's your authority st a quick trip or not i would point to the mayor cas there's a separate stop time rule where where if you read it that way would be against it and so this court held that in writing context when there are two reasons more than one reasonable interpretation th so all we need to do is get to two reasonable interpretations then we're in because and don't canons of construction solve that for us all the time isn't the whole point of a canon of statutory construction to guide a court when there might potentially be two possible reasonable outcomes then we look at we look at a can and i can and can say you know the listing of specifics you know those things the general doesn't exclude specific something like that those can unsolved ambiguities force they solve reasonable interpretations so isn't it before we would ever find just a quick ambiguity we would have to exhaust all of the other canons of construction well your honor i think that the the can of the construction as you pointed out earlier can go both ways in this case mean make a case that they go through your opponents way because in order for it to be ambiguous you have to make the case that he is right to not just think you're right but he is right to make the case that he is right logical consequence by the by the dictionary definition along and when we jump into the policy grounds this court has no it's i think it's all it's up to the court doesn't interpret a provision to go against the policy the clear policy of congress i believe that's mentioned also has the law and here you know congress does use the length the sentence or the time in confinement as a proxy for the seriousness of a conviction and has made it i'm sorry i  you say is interesting because the way this statute is phrased they could have done it in terms of has been confined as a result both as a result because it simply but they could have used something other than as a result of fiction i'm wondering if we're reading this as if it must be just one thing but i think it would seem to it could be a couple court said that the time served is your sentence of the served was before d the conviction and that your argument so therefore doesn't textually apply but could the court not also say that i'm i'm sentencing you  sentencing you also to that amount of time that you previously were served as a result of your conviction as i'm sorry that you previously served because you couldn't make bail scuse me but as a matter of grace i'm letting you out a relation you which has nothing to do with the statute i'm just saying i feel sorry for you but the one thousand three hundred and thirty two days that i just picked you you served it and it isn't it is as a result of your conviction because i would have given you somewhere between three to five years under these guidelines and i'd that's exactly what i'm doing so i'm sentencing you to three hundred and thirty two days within the guidelines as a result of your conviction your i would suggest that it would be kin to kind of  the it would be something out the words time some served for as a result of conviction and i our issue with the concept of time served as equal in confinement as a result of a conviction is that it doesn't become as a result of a conviction just because the judge others certain words you know you hear if you're convicted you pled and i'm saying that you is is the set is but i'm here by as an act of mercy releasing you because i feel sorry for you that is i still don't think it would solve the issue that