good morning your honors there please the court the claims court in this case held that the plaintiffs were in title two no pay for two types of activities that they did during the training program st the plaintiffs created detailed evaluations of canines and other employees who the plaintiffs were administering training to during the regular workday which is actually what took up most of plant up that that wrong it relates to some paragraph eight to some paragraph a four says simply that an employee is entitled to pay for productive work that they do during the training program period and it does not say that that  of getting another position so again some paragraph eight to it the one basically what let me maybe step back and what the regulation does in our view if that's up a few different paths for which an employee could get paid for training so one of them as you're saying is that if it's a job related training makes them better at their job rather than upward mobility training and secondly if they're directed participate so that's one prong of the regulation or no arguing that's what this is about this employee is entitle to pay for a training if for productive work that they perform during the training so in other words even if they voluntarily chose to go to the training course if during the course they're doing something productive for the employer some sort of work for the employer that otherwise perhaps a regular paid employee would be doing outside of training that employees have to be paid for that and we think that's the analysis but the question of applied to this particular type of activity was testimony about this asked to be in terms of the white sheets and green shoots the plaintiffs amended their complaint to add that that was before the summary judgment briefing and then in the summary judgment briefing the in after the government raised  in its break in the required brief the plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to pay under a four dollars which is the one that governs productive work in the program and i think that is that page eight four provide three different sort of path accommodate so anyone says if you go to a training during your regular workday you have to get paid for that so that's not an issue here because the plans were paid for the training during the regular workday then a two and a the training program yes so my understands the value of those szeged and how are they related to work in the regulations so that those particular issues are the ones that can be used in court later so but this is training there wasn't no one one being arrested here ringback right well so if and when those canines that are plaintiffs have trained to go out if they find evidence of a crime and that's presented in court then the government needs to be able to show that this is that possible in this is that eventuality were going to occur ready in this instance yes the the record says that the plaintiffs were were training canines to go into service at the border so if this was not a simply a practice exercise the canines they were training were ones that were that were going to be sent into service at the border after the course and the cannot handle if they were training or ones who are going to go into service after the training was real terms at the border no  were no i don't have any value i don't see anything in the record that indicates that there they actually had the type of value that they have if the sheets are compile as a result of actual work done at the border for canines are getting the training performed by our plaintiffs those sheets are the ones that the government's going to use to show that these candidates are adequately trained the ones that are plaintiffs are filling out during the course that's what the record shows because of this course is the one there is a multitrack course the plaintiffs are receiving training but they're also providing training to the canines and i cannot handlers and the canines became my handlers are then going to go into service at the border and the government needs a record of the training that they receive so what the plaintiffs are doing is creating that record that the government can use in the future and what the plaintiffs are also doing is filling out the green sheet that the government's going to use to assign grades to the can handler the human beings who were filling out the sheets that was part of their training to make certain that they knew how to fill out sheets correctly and that sort of thing that so that the way in which this issue was gre here about certain kinds of conduct for the for what your clients are seeking remuneration yes and some of their conduct was doing homework after hours when the program yes category one which we haven't really talked  coming from yes that's the basis of the decision that footnotes various wire were revealing search and we i agree that the record supports that b s sheets had two purposes one and one was a learning purpose but the problem the error here is that that's not the analysis that the court is supposed to apply under the regulation the analysis says if you do productive work during a training program so it's not if it's either a learning or it's work that's not what the regulations sent and that this is  illustrated by the th circuit farmer case so this is a case involving a patrol officer or i'm sorry the police arms to the desk officer who learning to be a patrol officer and his for a learning to be a patrol officer they send him out on patrol to to do the patrol with a more senior officer mentoring him and so he was actually wrist learning to be a patrol officer but he was also doing the patrol simultaneously and the th circuit said in the farmer case that he should be compensated for that so we think where the the claims court went on the wrong path here was it should have said so yes this part of the purpose of this work is for the the plaintiffs to learn how to fill out the sheets but that's not the end of the before the claims court because at that point it was the issue of simply compatibility so there wasn't a need they weren't looking at damages there wasn't it quantify the time i see them i am my time is ticking  using subsection eighty two in and as we point out in a brief as well as an arbitrary decision as well as the th circuit itself also specifically applied subsection eighty two to after hours training activities and in one of the court of federal claims cases b this court the federal circuit affirmed that case in full in terms of the in a little structure of what to apply with regard to the subsection a for that the concert raised here the entirety of their brief below mentions  this is all part of the training they met that this is all part of the training that these d c i see and structures go criminal in order to be certified to become teachers so to the extent as i think judge hours and the pounce of already admitted and we identify all the citation the brief the starting time the completion of this green sheets and white sheets was part of their learning process to become certified instructors wri step this court should apply here the regulation should be applied is subject subsection eight to because it is more narrowly tailored to the specific after hours training activities and and that combined with the fact that at the trial court  case of for instance the the buildings argument it's an argument that they say it's specifically urged the trial court to adopt section eighty two dollars and analyze their claims under that section and said look we win if the court applies subsection go thank you so i'd like to just respond to the argument that that was just made so on page nine of the opinion is where my posing council says the court did address this issue but if you look at the nd sentence of that paragraph it it shows the court's reasoning there it says the court said even if those efforts meaning the training could be considered work then parenthese conclusion about which this court expresses no opinion so the court does not take not making a finding about whether this is worth then the court goes on to say it appears that such work was performed during regular duty hours for which plaintiffs were compensated and there citation to the record there because the records show that that some of that work these white sheets and green sheets were done after hours so that's where the the claims court made a factual error and in finding there was no dispute compensation plan just performed a work after hours and help supervisors produce new candidate handlers place this also helps create new canine teams and train new canines and then it goes on for another says plaintiffs work products included trans canines handlers and teams so we did argue that what what the planets were doing and as part of this course was work in terms of training these canines and cannot handlers and we think that the claims court did not analyze that correctly a a minimum we would ask for that issue to be sent back for a more full analysis of that that particular issue and i would like to also address the other component of this which i haven't had a chance to talk about much of the study time  and there that's where we we are under a two if the court decides to apply that rule but we think that what we argued below about that particular issue was that  appears to require that an employee be directed to attend a training that's not consistent with that body of law under the f l a stay which says that the standard is actually whether the employer suffers or permits the work and we presented a lot of evidence here that the study time is something that was actually encouraged by the employer that the employer knew about it and fact the the course now has been changed to provide case study time during the workday  so if we're looking at a two for the study time we think the court should not apply the problem which they have to be direct to and there's a and a deal while opinion letter which i'd like to briefly direct the court's attention to which also addresses the principle driving o p m is exactly like laborers the recognized work that is both suffered and permitted to happen but as i've said both agencies for entirely different work forces choose to