that that would be appropriate the distinction that we see is we didn't understand that the government would insist that this court order had to include an instruction to the poor that the board should consider only that the government is saying now that we recognize there's a problem with the way florida law was interpreted it could have an involuntary or voluntary manslaughter conviction we just send it back to the board and they ought to be able to take new manslaughter and you see that in the record but we don't know whether i mean do we know i mean i thought the point here is we do not know whether or not the manslaughter was pollen theory or involuntary and that's what we need to know in order to resolve the fish but we will be that your sentence will be time served which he calculated at five hundred eighty eight days that's the that the that is the only record and that is the complete record of what mrs robinson was ultimately convicted of we've opened the very question that judge was asking you it doesn't you're not suggesting that this record been acutely a stab wishes that he pled and withheld only guilty of involuntary manslaughter are you know their record is just that she was convicted of statutory manslaughter what now whether or not there's not more information out there i mean what bugs me about this case is that it appears in the government is it using this against you but it some point before the court that would be put into the fact that that it was voluntary now nobody's using that to prejudice you now but seems to me that there was really no need to introduce evidence is to involuntary versus voluntary because it seems like the parties conceded it was the parties agree there was an error representative who was not right and we don't want to hold that against the represented but it seems to me that if you're a back finder and parties aren't disputing it is voluntary there is no need for someone to look through the records and find evidence i'm not night so why shouldn't there be an opportunity now i mean maybe you're white maybe there's absolutely no proof there are relevant evidence bearing on this question under the florida statute but how are we in a position to know that now between your position and the government if you're all of green and you say there's no more evidence that the government is simply saying well we want an opportunity for the board to confirm what you're saying there seems to be not much of a problem  your argument now much better is it that your thing did look at the record evidence is clear manslaughter there's nothing else you can glean from the conviction itself it only says manslaughter so it can shed no more light on the voluntary involuntary north of the action and you're saying the real crux of the increase should be the regulation which says focus on intent figure out if there's intent if there is he loses the eye for benefit if there is not he does that is i got it that is exactly correct i guess i still the evidence to consider now the word but if this question is the defense do you think and we can ask the government this that they want the opportunity and there might be more records in connection with the florida case and they want the opportunity to the extent that there is some other document out there that exists if it does exist to look and see whether or not for the clarification can be given on this florida plea but we don't believe that that would be appropriate if there is additional evidence we believe that the totality of the  and it should be considered in the framework of the v a regulation i understand the technical argument you're making now but what i do want to see and is how the outcome is going to be any different between your view and the government feel because the government of the day you have the theme exact outcome i can think of nobody that could come out differently under either of the two theaters so i'm wondering why we're arguing over it your honor to be we're arguing that it's the way in which this is asking for this court to instruct the board to consider florida statutory manslaughter and whether or not her or her actions result of her actions were voluntary or involuntary manslaughter under florida statute or walk to the proper interpretation is for the board to be considering its own regulation what's your problem with that i mean you eat and you may think it's a waste of time because you know of law that the no little clique necessitated a finding of intent so none of the other avenues has ever been considered by the board so that fact finding that mandatory fact finding has never been done let's assume somewhere in the florida records well that has been a determination or a law that's absolutely true and i don't know i mean it seems to me that that's all the government is looking for the board compress now your position is there is no other probative evidence dealing with the florida manslaughter conviction and that may be true as well but why shouldn't there be an opportunity at least to probe whether or not there's evidence that goes to the question of whether or not her plea in florida was proper voluntary rather than involuntary manslaughter our position is only that the board should not be free and should be catering for reconsidering the issues under florida statute law so the difference between what the government may be suggesting is that something already exists and that there was that adjudication that is quite but that the killer was right handed and she has left she had applied to voluntary manslaughter then big wouldn't need to do all of that right because there would be an admission of intent involved in that plea and if that admission of intent w true to that first issue of the veterans court heard by concluding that manslaughter conviction for manslaughter in florida necessarily precludes benefits under thirty eight c f r section three point one one of the floorboards have made it clear remain with instructions on the correct wall and that is because there are two different types of manslaughter under florida law that you find under conviction for manslaughter is not sufficient under three point one want and that's a voluntary or involuntary commitment there is no more evidence than what we already have in front of us and that based on what i've read i certainly can't decide which one she played the nothing else with on cover then what happens at that point the board would manslaughter in florida we disagree with that intent is not an element of manslaughter in florida what it relates to the culpable negligence train of manslaughter but it is a it is very relevant and in fact a distinguishing factor when it comes to the act brief it appears there was a distinction there you know a significant portion of our brief was actually addressing that i believe in section three of our brief we try to make this clear that intent is potentially relevant to a conviction of manslaughter in florida she just i think  sympathetic party all the way up to the governor's mansion in florida but it is an important issue about warding benefit based on that caused by allegedly caused by someone who  that's the best language we have going from that in trickling over to page seven two or cheechoo it our position work that the government was suggesting the government stated that the board could consider a form of statutory law but that's not what that is and you don't have any problem with that language right there because it goes on to say after findings of intent have to be made under regulation blah blah blah thing to be exactly what you were explaining to me you were looking for we do not agree or disagree with this portion of the brief there are other questions that we disagree ok that's very helpful to disagree with