submit that a careful review of both the factual slash procedural history of this case as well as the relevant legal authority reveals that her prior the term conviction with qualifying language and that in in every federal statute in every situation the court needs to look at the plain language of the statute and how is the term conviction used and in this  actually the term conviction is a conviction that has become final and so it's not really how do we interpret the word conviction we enter it's how do we interpret the phrase conviction that has become final in a case regarding immigration offenses immigration law said that because congress has you know complete control over immigration law that states do not determine or state law does not  case taking a misdemeanor possession and turning it into for a felony there's not and there's not the same need for the federal standard because actually the states are deemed to have preeminent control over  asking because it wasn't there wasn't this final hearing where or a motion where then it for deferred senates was and the conviction was expunged therefore right i think actually that in some states that's accepted in a guilty plea constitutes a conviction but it's not yet final it hasn't become final and the only way becomes final is if it's revoked and here's where the intrusion of this intrusion in this case interstate markers is you know knowledge of what's going on in her life and it going four and a half years they decided her probation officer decided not to revoke or not to file a petition to have ever so then another year goes on she hasn't had anything else happen and right before  six years is up the federal government comes in in a deicer and so in other words the federal government is not satisfied with the fact the state is not going to police her in the way that it has the discretion to do and so then r and they didn't look and looking at the fact that the man in the statute would you agree that she was found guilty and put on probation yes right and so far that's where we are nothing further has happened other than she pleads guilty this put on probation subject to a provision where she might expunge it later which she has never done on the other hand no your honor it was never a vote so this stands as i understand that but the record in montana and has never been utilized by this defendant so what we have in fact is an operative probation following a conviction that's the status of the record right now  forty four says someone in the midst of addition when there's a conviction that has become final ok she had a conviction but it had not become final it would only become final and this is according to the order and the fact that she has a person who supervised her closely and that person knows that she's gone four and a half of her six years she's a mother she's otherwise comply with all the conditions and that's what probation officers do is they make think even the law of montana weighs against her arguments here as this court is pointed out my hand requires that she file a motion before she can get  a choice not for this first officer to file that i will try to find a record cite for that and splice the court i also would point out the fact that that she there was an opportunity still for her to appeal an