procedure have a separate rule telling courts not to reverse or rather i had i can't remember what the exact phrasing is for basically not to reverse for errors where there is no prejudice fact being that the delay there was greater than four years and second that the government had shown that the reason for the delay was a quote acute shortage of manpower at the u s marshal's office that's a page twelve what's up my mind i don't know about my colleagues was on my mind is this you've got an unattributed it appears to be possibly excusable the way of six months by the government it appears to be perhaps a violation of rule thirty two point one and if not a violation of a rule established by federal common law in my city however there's also a rule that we can't reverse for harmless error now i'm trying to figure out what the prejudices the prejudices the cases speak of is prejudice and proving you didn't do it when you're charged with a probation revocation or prejudice an inability to accept the government's proof that you did sort correct what has that prejudiced doesn't appear to pertain another kind of prejudice that occurred to me is you have a dirty you weigh you're living a dissolute life you ought to be revoked the warrant is issue they hope do anything about it everybody forgets about it in three or four years later they catch up to you you've rehabilitated yourself you've got a job you're living with your wife and kids you're behaving yourself supporting your family and then they throw you in jail destroying your rehabilitation instead of contributing through another kind of prejudice and in this case i can't see either one there's no evidence that he got a job there's no evidence he had any trouble caused by the  his probation hill had terminated in the interim that was the sort of magical thing that happened in hill between the issuance of the warmth and the execution of the warrant in hamilton oh no such thing happened and hamilton didn't discuss presidents hamilton was occurred in the course of his probation during that that an excuse for transplant i don't understand why that's a big deal you buy yourself out of supervision but if you still have the dirty you way i don't see those pressures in any had he had the bad  the other thing i wanted to point out about this distinction between helen hamilton and reagan's was that in helen hamilton we have a case where the defendant committed an isolated violation by compliance and i think that's where the prejudice comes from if you're honest that somebody who has an isolated violation followed by compliance especially when there is an important event such as their supervision turning from supervised answered revised has a little expectation that  was on willingly from his life where the government where he thought he'd been forgotten by the government and the difference between that and this and killing hamilton is that the defendant didn't think even forgotten by the government because he was manpower constraints as recognized one show but we do have different districts and it was a misdemeanor supervised release type situation there is no good bears on proof of the violation or or its absence there isn't any suggestion that that sort of prejudice pertains here there's another kind of prejudice that occurred to me that i was consulting with your adversary about and that is where a time one the person has the dirty you way he's violating the terms of his probation and that the probation officer reasonably thinks he needs some punishment to get into shape but by the time they pick him up back long afterward he has shaped up and at this point punishing him would actually interfere with his rehabilitation instead of furthering because he's already got himself together he's behaving himself and this case i'm trying to figure out what the prejudice is he won't be going to jail on account of the thirty year way but he will lose