that error doesn't affect the defendant's substantial riots if the longer sentence remains valid and that's the case here down below in the district court at sentencing the defendant was sentenced on count one to three therefore it did not affect the defendant's substantial right well like is my only question is if i get the point that the longer sentence consumes the shorter sentence but on the other hand judicial proceeding it must subject the defendant to over lengthy period of incarceration or in other words a period incarceration that would be longer than what is allowed again in this case that wouldn't be that wouldn't be the case the found that when there are too sensitive and there might be some error associated with the shorter length sentence despite that error because the defendant would not serve an hour or a day longer then what is permissible what is what the district and i believe that might be addressed by potentially federal rules of criminal procedure due to this notion of harmless error the fact that when there are areas that don't affect the defendant substantial right under that provision this court must disregard such  s there are harmless error that occur all the time and when they are reviewed by this court or any appellate court it is the case that unless it affects the defendant substantial rights unless it would be affected judicial proceedings as long as it wouldn't waste judicial resources those areas must be corrected here none of those factors at the net and so the night of the last two prongs are met by the defendant and his argument briefly i'd like to talk about some of these that one of them was actually not of sound correct yet it was reduced i believe after the fact misdemeanor or it was i believe under state law it was somehow reduced from the felony that right but but it was used as an enhancement which by using it is an enhanced in and put in at the one hundred and twenty months the argument he raises is that that under the state's statute it was  of the guidelines correct well if i could take a step back there i believe while it may have been expunged reduced with misdemeanor i believe as long as at the time under this court's precedent as long as at the time that i was convicted it was considered a felony conviction proposition i believe that as long as the crime was committed when the crime was committed it was a felony any changes in law after the fact don't affect the fact that it was once a felony conviction and it's proper predicate and you and i have looked sentence at the time was agreed upon to both parties and in fact the reason that the spending agreed that enhancement may have been to gain some credibility and then technically to make argument under three thousand five hundred and fifty three or lower sentence because the defendant hadn't technically of the statutory max and the question is simply one of remedy this court case law however conclusively answers that question in mr graham all those favor in cases such as kin at the time of the decision these collateral consequences of that defendant substantial rights and therefore justified vacating the sentence that that's the exact same circumstance here and there's good reason for that rule and the reasons are really truthful st of all this court has clearly stated and it should be apparent to everybody and to quote from shot it is a miscarriage of justice to give a person in a legal sense accidentally no doubt broke the law and when that happens this court corrects it i mean i think that was the whole idea from the decision in that way where i know it's out of circuit but i think the court i believe it if i think they said it so well where this court to affirm simply to avoid burdening the criminal justice system we would diminish the public faith in the integrity of our course what gives people confidence in our justice system is not that w merely get things right rather it is that we live in a system that holds the rule of law even when it is inconvenient to do so oh we're talking here about a sentencing proceeding that took at the outset with all the contested issues and our that's from calling the case to completion this is not a big onerous thing the point is to get it right there's no doubt the district court got it wrong and that's not to cast aspersions on the district court mistakes were made and what this court steps in to do and what makes our system truly wonderful is that when mistakes are made we correct them and it's oh it's harmless it's not harmless it's not harmless for  fact illegality that's not what we do in our system that's what makes us great we correct mistakes we put we understand the importance of procedural correct yes but there's a whole nother reason and that's the side what kinkaid says is application of the concurrent sentence doctrine and of quoting inherently requires the assessment of all adverse collateral consequences of unreviewed convictions or sentences at the time of appeal as a practical matter it may be impossible at the time to foretell all future outburst collateral consequences for the account and then they go on to say although neither he nor king kid can identify a specific prejudice which may stem from his erroneous  we would need to address the no your honor not a single one of those from the score involved in the legal sentence that is one over the statutory max and that's a fundamental distinction there is not one of those sentences that is in the same procedural or even if they want to recuse themselves i mean this happens regularly but to remember a recent seeing hearing is not onerous it's it's what this report virtually always does in the case of a sentence the district court gets to take another look at it and that's especially appropriate here judge lee i think also because we do have this issue on the four level and hand that regardless of where this court comes out on it we can agree on whol below and so it where your goal is to get it right and sentencing and making sure we're not depriving people of their fundamental rights a liberty based on mistakes this is a perfect case to send it back so at least that can be fleshed out because and then there's no finding here that how this inoperable gun well been facilitated that is simple possession of that i'm not saying you can't do district court couldn't make that finding but here it was the government's burden to show how possession qualified and they didn't meet the burden and there's no finding so because the case should go back to the legal sense mr molder should these get the shot to make th