yes maybe in whatever the remain matter as a direct appeal that's an issue raised by the government they can answer that is yes i'll give you a couple reasons for that the first reason is this was an order made by the sentencing court that is at issue here and if you look at even the cases analogous in the sense that the government cites granger and sanchez be real they're factually analogous because they're the issue was whether or not the sentencing court did or did not properly or improperly give the defendant before them credit for custodial time served as a condition of probation once that probation was violated those are really the only cases that are actually analogous in that sense well in those cases those both of those courts go on to say that the better practice because in that case the district court which was the sentencing court was silent on whether you intended to do th and part of your argument it's as i understood it was that the court for vs any additional credits to be made that i don't see that in the judgment it's not reflected in the judgment except one is it would almost certainly say well the court your granted you some time credit for time served but not any more time than that the granting of credit for time served as of august ninth is granting that think there's two responses to that the first one is and this relates to where i started which is if you look at granger and sanchez the korea there really the only cases where the question is how do you apply to still your credits for an eight eight time served as a condition of probation wilson was a much more factually complicated case and in fact all of the subsequent cases that followed wilson cited were questions of whether or not credit should be given for  reconcile that with the analysis that the courts undertake in reviewing probation revocation decisions as in granger where it says we should look to what that the district court the sentencing court should tell us what it intends well if it's the sentencing  obligation to tell state what it intends which expect a credit for time served as a condition of probation upon probation revocation well then clearly that's something that should lie as a direct appeal the second point that i want to make is that that that in order to try to determine whether or not the district court intended to give credit or did not intend to give credit or they should the district court sentencing court should say something about that and what we can do here i dilemma that it provides and this is the second argument i'd have to make to the extent the remedy the sole remedy is then to go to the bureau of prisons seeking administrate of review and then file haiti's corpus petition is as the government program statement not a regulation a program statement that says your prisoners will deny this the application for credit for the time served hasn't been denying it has not yet happened and i did that nothing has happened with respect to that yet they just gave the presence allegedly yes and that's basically been the statement of the that there's a program statement holocene statement of the b o p s cited in the government's brief which stands for that proposition which is they're not going to credit him for time served as a condition of probation once probation has been violated here the the dilemma is in order to to to file a atheist corpus petition what's going to happen is that suppose the o b denies it and we go into district court assuming we could do that expeditious essence of granger and fan should be for real and we're essentially back to where we are now which is was the sentencing court right or wrong in saying it he gave the sentence and then didn't differently denied that crap he didn't and that's what i keep coming back to the judgment which is the only thing that can be appealed from our question to him hey vs says nothing about the legal issues that you're asking us in this time it's silent and i don't understand how that it could assuming that it could be done expeditiously enough to to make it meaningful to mr peters it could look at that question the the the problem is it's going to look at exactly the same thing it's going to look at what did the district court do when i realized the judgment is silent on not in the judgment because the relief we were seeking the credit was denied therefore it's not part of the judgment and so that's what the hades court would look at and that's exactly what the issue is here whether that denial in light of the sentence that was given is something that is this is legal or illegal and we say it's illegal for all the reasons we stayed in our brief i think under the statute and even the sentencing guidelines was not a political seven point that i'm sorry seven  case the defendant is asking for credits for ten days of prison time that he served pursuant to required by his earlier sentence for probation his opening brief raises the thirty five eighty five  the bureau of prisons takes that sentence all they have is the judgment they don't have transcripts of what might have gone on in court and they take that sentence for months and determine mechanically using their procedures which follow thirty five eighty five b and determine how long has this person served in prison what does he get credit for and what days should he be released so the thirty five eighty five b issue is kind of a mechanical one that speaks to what you're of prisons would do now for whatever the reason is and it would be procedurally proper for the defendant to have appealed that discretionary decision from the district court here the district court said no i want to give you a four month sentence i don't want to lower it any more it would be procedurally proper for the defendant to appeal that and we would argue in response that was within the court's discretion and there's no basis for reversing that there is nothing nothing would be procedur minimum a reasonable interpretation of the statute we believe it's me it's mandated by the plain text of the statute which says the defendant is not supposed to get credit for time that he served that was credited to you don't get i think i think that you sort of hard questions is not what you're responding to and that is if the court wants without authority to have those words in the judgment then how can think that we're sort of talking cross purposes i think our concern is whether even though it's not the issue whether the district court did something that it wasn't allowed to do us all and that we should take  and the district court is unhappy later on because the court thought things would be concurrent would kill time would be counted when it wasn't counted in v o p has to do its own count that counting and figure out when the defend his released here what the district court put in there was sort of an advisory opinion that doesn't matter all to mentally but it happens to come out the same way as b o p came out so to me it's all it's all the more harmless it's all the more reason not to the only reason to change it would be to simply let the district court know next time don't put this in but it doesn't have to because it doesn't create any any substantive error you know  and then bring in this court this court would be reviewing it something to flee b o p s determination on those ten days and i really think that the you know what well it doesn't it doesn't cause us any any harm for you to correct the judgment in this way that you're suggesting i simply don't think it's necessary because defendants not really challenging the outcome there in this kind of time just be a mechanical procedure that it doesn't seem to me that anyone has a problem with i don't think that that's that's a necessary thing to correct part of the sentencing hearing but it's not the sentence itself and and lastly i think it provides that where the implementation of the sentence would be unconstitutional which is part of our argument here which is they'll get a credit time served a crime serve as a condition of probation upon a probation revocation what amounts to a violation of double jeopardy if that's how it's construed a lot the only point i want to make is i think the legal question before your honor's is not just whether or not that the trial court could properly have done that properly have made a calculation of credits or determination of credits granting some deny but whether it's decision whether the reason the basis for its decision  one that's viable under the law i think that legal question can be answered by you because it's in front not just the authority question but even assuming the court did have authority its determination was incorrect for the reasons we stated in our