court for the district court to correct or and then the written judgment to conform to the unambiguous oral pronouncing of the parties further agree that the district court modified mr lara's terms of supervision to include ten months and twenty three dollars day period of custody as a condition of supervision and the remaining issue for this court to decide is whether that condition of custody as a term of supervision lawful it is not regarding river well the oral the transcript of judge burns's sentencing in this case is crystal clear he says quote so i'm not going to revoke him and quote and he makes that ruling after hearing arguments from both parties about whether to revoke mr lara's supervision here is for mr lawrence to self as well as the probation officer and then come to the conclusion that he's not going to revoke supervision law in this circuit is clear that an unambiguous oral pronouncement sends controls quote even if contrary to the district court's intent that court is from united states versus garcia this court has repeatedly held since united states versus munoz de la rosa that an unambiguous oral pronouncement of sentence controls and the district court's language in this case is crystal clear as the parties agree it was the district court's unambiguous ruling that he was quote to revoke mr lara would repeat a different circumstance here if the government and they're not were saying let's just less just under the whole thing and send it back to the judge to start over we would be in a different question occurred to me too but it seems to me because the government is not appealing we're stuck with what unequivocally the district judge said he thought he was doing which was not revok carette so tell me why assuming he didn't revoke the term of incarceration is not legal historically conditions of custody as a term of supervision have not been permitted by statute this court in united states versus ahi reached that conclusion in two thousand and the remained unchanged for eight years until two thousand and eight when congress amended the supervised release conditions and permitted district courts to impose a condition of custody as a term of supervision in limited circumstances and the condition of custody imposed on mr lar simply continues to serve the five year term of supervision that was originally ohs is supervision began his st day of supervision was may st of two thousand and nineteen and his one year of supervision included on may st of this year two thousand and twenty and so my position is that the custodial condition of supervised release  district court could have imposed up to two years in custody if it had revoked mr lara's supervision but all parties agree that that's not what happened so the potential penalties for revocation sentence do not justif condition of supervised release here because we all agree that mr lara's supervision was not revoked she and that's why i asked would you before about what your argument is here's what i understood your argument to be but district court simply right my argument in the opening brief was that the ten permits a district court to impose a condition of custody as internal supervision for nights weekends or quote other  imposes a term of intermittent confine that intent has never been interpreted by this court and so there's limited guidance about what type of sentence would conform to the plain terms of the statute are bro they include nights weekends or quote other intervals of ten months and twenty three days is an interval of time so i see your point and then i guess it's moot at this point anyway it is moot at this point anyway because we're overall that the district court lacked authority to impose custody for modification the only argument was that the term violated be ten and then we said no b ten doesn't apply because this is not intermittent confine involved incarceration so let's go back to thirty two why do you think that because we've got a lot of case law that says the purpose of supervised release is to rehabilitate and  custody is a true supervision when it wants to and i would point the court to eighteen u s c thirty's five hundred and sixty one eighty three d that governs probation there are congress said you cannot impose court did play error which is so obvious who controlled by you no controlling authority that any competent district judge should be avail you know should be allowed to avoid it without benefit of objection well what do you do with the b confinement that that's a benefit for the stand and you know who wouldn't want to just go on nights and weekends so that's a benefit and i think when they amended it they wanted to say you know you can only do it in the st year he provides relief in the suit in the super bowl facilities are condition we know eight years later congress basically said that was an incorrect interpretation of the congress didn't d say it was an incorrect interpretation ringback when congress passes a new law it doesn't say that the court was wrong interpreted in the past it may solve a problem of a sudden get to overrule the interpretation of the court it just says all right maybe intervene injured two cars ration isn't allowed we're not going to solve that we're going to