that sort of addressed that issue however i believe the difference in those cases and our case is that mr defterios has fully completed serving his but has actually i was expectation the fact that he had a one month sentence doesn't change the fact that he knew the government was appealing that sentence so how could there be any kind of expectation of finality he might have hoped that he was out for good but he knew the government was arguing that the sentence should be longer gave me was a quotation just the inclusion of the word ordinarily suggests that there's not an absolute rule that once you're out of jail you can you can forget about anything else because you're home free i mean it would seem to me that the notion of expectation is difficult to square with the facts of this case right if the fact that the case was an appeal is dispositive of this issue then and the cases that discuss whether the defendant has completed the sentence or not is useless all those cases where an appeal and the defendant's new appellants knew that the case was being appealed than the census was being challenged and so if the fact that the case was an appeal is dispositive then the court can stop there and does not have to either look at whether the defendant had completed the sentence for not you don't have any expectation finality and an illegal sensi that's another our issue that needs to be addressed i'm not so certain that this census was illegal it was legally bound to impose such a sentence however the ninth circuit in that case clearly stated that the reason for the departure would have been warranted if the court exercise defterios served the sentence and we argue that the legitimate expectation of finality attached at that point in time if the government did not wish for that to happen it should have let mr death terrio just not start sorting the sentence while the case was on appeal then since it was a short sentence of one month he could have and being assimilated into the society again and he was carrying out his normal life and all of sudden now three years later he's being we sentenced and he's facing going back to spending think the case that you cited for the opposite direction the andersen case is probably on point when the government cited the andersen case specifically the case parents the granting the government the right to appeal did not violate the double jeopardy clause prohibition against multiple punishments and successful prosecutions following an acquittal the supreme court only concluded that since congress specifically provided for government sent people sentenced the defendant has no legitimate expectation of anality in the original sentence request the court to address the issue of credit for the time that he was on supervised release he's still currently on supervised release before he begins well sort of things and what's he serving a thousand and one presumably did not run during the month that he was in custody on this fraud then he got sprung and presumably it started to run again so it may well have  laughs now i don't know i haven't done the math nor does anybody know because we don't have that information nor did the district court so it may well be that he's only  continued to run because the only sure which which shows that the district court recognized that that there was credit to be given but the district court said explicitly you know i don't know how this all figures out go work with the probation office and if you folks can't agree come back in and tell me where we stand and that was never done right and our position is that the district court should have made some kind a ruling and it leaves out any order without any information in front of it at least  the circumstances the found it had a legitimate expectation of finality in his original sentence and here or for multiple reasons mr defterios did not have a legitimate expectation of finality with regards to his one month sentence first the government here clause does not provide the defendant with the right to know at any specific moment in time what the exact limit of his punishment will turn out to be all of that you know is is pretty pretty hornbook stuff mr par that in this case the one month sentence had been served and that makes a difference why do you think it doesn't make because i think it's not sufficient to just look at whether he has completed short duration sentences and those are oftentimes a product the most egregious sentencing errors the ones that the governments most likely to appeal we if we were to allow those to be immunised who would basically render you know what exactly happened here there's a lot of talk about whether you know he's serving one month imprisonment term given religion expectation of finality but we we know that he didn't have sentence because if you look at the supplemental sentencing memorandum filed on june tenth two thousand and five he complains that since he had been released from his one month prison term he had he has been unable to buy a car he has been unable to obtain employment where he can live where he can earn a living wage to support himself and his wife because he may have to go back into custody at any time and he knew that you know  i believe probably he would have more increase reason for an expectation a fine now i need if you're if you're if you're pointing inches on on his notice of the notice of the c e o it does i think  i guess what i mean i think the government would love to take the position that you know whether we file an appeal with the positives but we are not going so far to say that the moment we're just saying looking at all the circumstances you know looking at how much of the time he's been served but i didn't know i agree i mean the probably to preserve you know the spirit of the francesco it would appear to be the case that once  expectation of finality and his sentence i ask about that the supervised release is the government disputes the proposition that he's entitled to credit for the supervise release time already served credit and to help the defendant transition so you can he imposed a five year supervised release period after a one month sentence so i doubt if you really expected that one month in jail would require five years of transition time so i  shall we say skeptical of the argument the years you're suggesting that the five years was calculated specifically to follow twenty four months that doesn't appear to be the case but i take it to be your position that yes the the the five years should start a new without regard to side how much credit is due but how can it be that you don't get credit it's punishment yes it is it is punishment that is that's not the primary time served on probation against a new term of probation why wouldn't you have to credit a new term time served on supervised release against a new term of supervised release abstract in the abstract i think it depends on what the government does not believe should necessarily happen it's a day to day off that because of so you haven't got there yet right that's mechanic what i'm trying to understand is your position is that double jeopardy isn't implicated unless it isn't implicated if there is no credit i believe in  fashioning the overall sentence if a district court takes into account the total amount of punishment that the defendant has already served and then looking at the thirty five fifty three a factor we believe that you know that sentence there i hesitate on the crediting part because we would be hasn't to back out today the entire year and a half or two years he may have served on supervised release without kind of taking into account you know  the five years super new supervisor lease term intended to account for what the ends are there we need to balance the goals of it helping him transition i think the punishment af