focus my argument if i may on the factual error committed by the district court here it's undisputed that mr moore's overall term of imprisonment is three hundred and eighty four months that's three hundred and twenty four months on the drug count plus sixty months consecutive on the one hundred and twenty four dollars c count but the district court erroneous lee stated twice in its decision denying reconsideration that the overall term of imprisonment is three hundred and twenty four months which the court deemed sufficient punishment the question before this court is is whether to overlook this ever and simply affirm as the government requests or whether to r proceedings we believe the just and the prudent course is to if the mistake was simply a lack of precision as the government suggests it will take only a few minutes for the district court to say so but if the if the mistake was not just a slip mr moore may be serving extra years in prison unnecessarily and there's really only way one way to know whether the mistake was it was a serious one or just  confusion and that's to ask the district judge this court has often noted that we are in error may have influenced a sentencing decision the court should not risk leaving in place a sentence that may be materially but in his decision now that's on appeal to twenty nine thousand dollars decision what's what kind of baffling and frankly i don't know the answer but he does clearly state on two separate occasions in this short so a four page decision concludes that by saying this doesn't alter the court's determination that three hundred and twenty four months is an appropriate term of imprisonment i think that you know the statement is made in the context of the request to reduce the only thing that the district the only element of the sentence that the district court had discretion to change and so i find it difficult to read it as really the overall permits in prison that he's  that's what the whole is the st back to the two thousand and fifteen decision that refers to you know this prior reduction and the sentence the defendant again requests cheer was not warranted you know he was so familiar with the case and it's true that he in the last page he said to a sentence of three hundred and twenty four dollars is in overall terms of a sufficient but again it seems to me that he's just focusing on the only living part and the only element that the defendant has asked for any movement has to an under piece of discretion review with the defendant not entitled to anything further in the court being so defendants about rejecting the requested reduction i'm not sure that we should take the district court's time with further proceedings i don't like knowledge that you know it's it's time and one could want to have any doubt yes i mean that's really so that's just connie i'm sympathetic to the question and i wrestled with this opinion myself trying to trying to look for some sign to give me comfort that the court actually does i understand everything perfectly but i'm looking for it on page one hundred and twenty one dollars of the appendix which is page two of the court's decision there he notes that  toward the middle of the page that the court reached its decision after determining that a sense of three hundred and twenty four was court and overall term of imprisonment that's sufficient and then he repeated the same thing on one hundred and twenty three of the appendix and you know even though i'm an advocate i can tell you that the judge is misunderstanding i can just tell you that what he says here is factually incorrect and since the judge says it twice and since it doesn't seem to be a typographic government's not saying that you meant to type a instead of two they're just saying you know it just must be some kind of imprecision but it's not imprecision it's not like he's just getting off by a couple of months this is this is a five year difference oh conversation yeah yeah because it seems the whole conversation is just setting aside the five years consecutive that were mandatory and that wasn't subject to the dialogue between the defense and the court yes yes because the sixty's not it directly can't be reduced but under the supreme court's decision in dean which came down i think in two thousand and seventeen and this court's decision on which which acknowledged in amount and what's troubling to me is that the court for whatever reason it's maybe an oversight it may be that a reconsideration decision doesn't necessarily get the same attention as the principal ruling but the court is overlooking something and  they have a friend in the in the sense that they never talked about the the sixteen months on top they never alerted the judge neither side for that matter talked about dean or this court's intervening decision in brown that that's sort of made explicit that you could address the drug sentenced in light of the nine hundred and twenty four c but i suggest that the prudent course something that may take you know a few minutes at most is to just direct the district court's attention to this inconsistency to say it gives us pause and to just makes if mr moore really have to do the extra five on top of the three hundred and twenty four that that that's exactly what the judge thank thank your honor good morning my name is david tetlock i'm an assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of new york may please the court i represent the government in this matter your honor i think judge carney hit exactly the issue right on the head i would note that a few things that are that are overlooked by the defendant in both his papers and here today the st is that judge sheriff has very clearly referenced that eight consecutive sentences sixteen months was imposed on top of the sentence for the is focused as a choice on the applicability of whether that sentence should be changed in light of the defendant's motion and be only thing that the government concedes is arguably imprecise is the courts the court because it's very clear that the judge knew the sixteen month term was a plausible and the notion that the judge who had issued in at least two separate opinions related to the sentence somehow thought that he was reducing the total the drug sentence by sixty additional months was it was a mistake i think is is incorrect particularly when the same the same opinion that he's citing notes the applicability of the sixteen months on top of the drug conviction so it's certainly imprecise that he should have said you cited the whole provision to make clear that the sixty one apply but he did that on page two of his opinion and appendix one hundred and twenty one of the top so i just i think that there is there certainly  every district court decision has some sort of language that lawyers on the outside would like to make clear but i don't think this is one that requires going back to the judge and saying you know what did you mean because i think it's very clear is addressing the drug conviction  reinforcing i guess in this motion for reconsideration and if it's so that he could have taken into account in the more kind of holistic way the fact that five here can mandatory y reading his considerations record of his consideration and if there's any ambiguity this type years of mr moore's life is there really that much harm and concha resolve the appeal that mr morris had pending now for over a year but i agree with you we don't want anybody to be serving more time than they sh that you're asking for more than clarification well you know what we're we're not asking for more than clarification i think in situations like this the court has generally had to choose between what's typically c consecutive sentence play into that i would prefer i think it would serve justice better to have plenary remand to reconsider the what was the appropriate sentence in light of everything particularly since we have a pandemic that the court has never had the chance to consider and since as i pointed out earlier no one ever brought to the court's attention the nine hundred and twenty four c component in light of gene habit and a continuing proceeding yes i may be reluctant my client may not be reluctant but i've persuaded him i think correctly that right now because this court has jurisdiction it would it would not be worth starting a whole new motion to try to get an indicative ruling from the judge when we're hopeful that the court will at least get our way on the reading and so the bottom line is i don't want to overreach but there is a temptation to sometimes when the court grants a jacobson remain and when it's a very narrow question for the judge to just respond reflexively and say oh of course i understood and i have no doubt the judge paraphase will faithfully try to answer the question but i think sometimes the appearance of justice made better be served by just saying look it's it's now many years later there's a pandemic there's an inconsistency we just remit for further consideration and the parties i think usually are entitled to submit some briefing before the court resolves once our clarification honor because the situation is changing i think it would be questionable whether he could establish independently extraordinary compelling reasons under the st step act but i think as part of if the question for the for  is is look you know there is this inconsistency in opinion take another look in the light of what is both sides agree all term which is three hundred and eighty four and whatever you know the current situation is i think that would be an appropriate reman but again i do not want to overreach and ask for too much certainly any reminders preferable to an affirm and so thank you thank you for your i think we have the argument thank you thank you both preheat your argument we serve decision thank you thank you