prisons that mr walker not get credit for the time he served from what he was arrested to the time that he was superseded in the indictment specifically we're talking about three hundred eighty three days of time between district court on june twenty ninth of two thousand and seventy mr walker was taken into federal custody on january five twenty seven seen her soon to indictment that was returned on december first two thousand and sixteen at that point or soon thereafter the state court charges were dismissed while mr walker was resolving that that first indictment the nine twenty two g by his own admission he was engaging in an obstruction of justice coming up with counts one and two of the superseding indictment at that point the second attorney moved to withdraw and the court appointed me personally to the c j and accepted his change of plea when we got to the sentencing we brief the issue ultimately the judge judge coleman at the district court did downward departure not as much as we had requested but she did our departure eighteen months on count one eighty minus on count two to be certain currently the problem is if the b o p would give him credit or not three hundred eighty three days is approximately sixteen percent of the eighteen month sentence that she awarded that she does not even know if you will get credit for whatever reason the supreme court in that case made a distinction between somebody would already started their sentence versus somebody who was sentenced but not yet in custody such as the defendant in that wilson matter and will send the defendant was not in supreme court decision mr walker should have been given credit for those three hundred eighty three days would could you accord done she said something that and she was going to have for something i mean some things that reviewed the discovery i counted approximately twenty days of those three hundred eighty three days where mr walker was engaging in a nefarious conduct that gave rise to count two so she would have counted the number of days and said we're not going to give you credit for those twenty or twenty six days or whatever that it was fine but to say three hundred eighty three days when for the most ninety percent or more of it ninety five percent maybe he was not engaging in any sort of charge of criminal conduct we think it's inappropriate swishy could adjust your sentence that's all i'm saying and that could end another way well that would be the only way actually the problem and when you turn it over to the authority to acquire the bureau of prisons to give credit for time served before the superseding indictment it's the attorney general in this case the bureau of prisons that has the authority to compute  administer a defendant's sentence and that's what was actually decided in the supreme court in the wilson case wilson made clear the section thirty five eighty five b does not authorize a district court to all work credit but i will tell you from having spoken to the b o p s designation and computation sentence section that the process was followed by the b o p in this case i'm not sure if through august seventh two thousand and eighteen when he was sentenced that was the time time range that he was actually given credit for six hundred and forty eight days approximately he was given credit and the reason it started on october twenty ninth as opposed to the date that he was arrested in june was because he was subject to a parole violation under illinois law so the v o p did not give him credit for the period from when he was arrested on june eleventh through october defendant argues that judge coleman should have awarded him seven hundred eighty seven days from this entire period from the time that he was arrested on june eleventh through the time of sentencing but as your hono days i if he believes that there is a period that he should get additional credit clark he could pursue an administrative action with a deal p as he is permitted to do i'm not sure he has done that after the government's brief was filed but up until the time the government's briefs filed he did not do to do so so he the opi gave him more time and he really did not honor the district i just recommended correct and i  the reason your honor is is what stated in the government's brief it's the b o p s determination that the district court can recommend which she certainly did just like she recommended that he be given drug treatment it's a recommendation only now i just might want to clarify court has required in that are permitted at least in that wilson decision regarding the hundred and thirty nine days or so that may still be at issue because of the new information to me i don't know what the calculation is correct i have no reason to say it's and white in the judgment of conviction that's right in writing correct and it wasn't it was in the judgment as well which is the second appendix i think to my opening brief is the court of any other questions for me thank you very