should my opponent has informed me this morning that her office which was the united states attorney's office in the john r case does not intend to pursue further review of that decision therefore in this case i believe that should another words i assume that there was no recent unsing therefore there's no double jeopardy problem and there's no allocution problem just assume ok you've been made a motion to correct the normal criteria for motions to reconsider and when it got to the flannel line that is whether there was a manifest injustice or a clear erro he stated no there's not because the juvenile act doesn't have allow for credit and the statute that applies to normal de s doesn't apply all right that now is wrong true all right so it seems to me technically that what should happen is that the motion to that you appeal from the motion to reconsider that structure so technically why isn't the proper thing to have happened here that we reverse vacate the denial of the motion to reconsider send it back for the district court then to reconsider in light of jr and do what  got to you've got to play by my rules for the moment well because i'm i ask you to assume that those arguments get you nowhere but you've got a winner all right just just humor me ok i'm sorry perhaps i didn't understand your question judge starr let me try again assume that the issues that you actually raised on peel yes don't win i understand there's no double jeopardy there's no elocution problem ok the district judge however did didn't i the motion to reconsider in part on the ground that it was proper for the bureau of pr not to credit time served and why didn't jr that now is wrong that would be an appropriate disposition judge the one that you suggested earlier ok to reconsider its order deny my motion to and that he was sentenced to up to two years according to the oral judgment and written judgment said two years just as the probation officer had recommended that he has now served his two years in custody because he is entitled to the credit served two years he's actually served two years and two weeks i believe that the judgment at this point should be that church mcnamee should reconsider is his order reinstate the original judgment and direct do the calculation in order to really understand judge that wilson said that to calculate which sorts of credit of a juvenile or a defendant is entitled to the bureau of prisons as in charge of making that calculation but in this particular case i think it's clear because he was arrested by federal authorities i may fourth two thousand and four he was in federal custody and the entire time that's a statute that says that mcnamee and i think they're dealing with they're going to be dealing with that issue in the john r case almost immediately and they will have to deal with the the issue and the this case also almost immediately  reconsideration is indicated my concern is that if we send it back to judge mcnamee under the court suggestion then there has to be an order entered for the juvenile to be released yet if the court enter an order because the court presumes that or for purposes of argument the poor court presumes that the defense arguments did not carry the day and therefore you went right to the issue of jo otherwise it's going to require some going back to judge mcnamee getting on the docket and prolonging the custody because the government obviously agrees that well why don't you then if that's what you want and invite him to just concede error and agree to an immediate release because your honor there's two different things here john are affects the implementation of the sentence i sure are the sentence that was actually imposed i also agree with that so the to assume we're not going to be resolved in his favor they might be resolved in his favor oh i just asking for the sake of argument to assume that they weren't but i guess i'm just having difficulty understanding why the government doesn't recognize that jr now thinks at least the end of the train which is the motion to reconsider for this reason your honor  judge mcnamee has i believe made clear through his orders that he did not intend credit for trying to start anything he wants to stick to that position i suppose he's entitled to stick to it and get mandated well i mean a bit but it's up to him but but the question with them become if judge mcnamee fully intended from day one for the juvenile to get twenty four months in custody th could judge mcnamee add twenty four months in the ten months served and give him a thirty year let's let me let me just try to spell this out in his motion to reconsider it the judge himself stated i am not going to reconsider denial of the but it's now clearly not correct the government right ok so to the extent that judge mcnamee believed it to be otherwise he now because we have to send it back i don't think the matter he said that it was correct but that that that was just the state of the law he wasn't taken issue as to whether that state a lot of the right or not are not simply saying credit is not provided by law now that credit is provided by law we must send it back to judge ma judgment that being the case then judge mcnamee was within his rights to make that typographical correction and the judgment is proper now as a practical fact as we previously discuss that means that if the judgment stands as written that b o p is now required to give the juvenile credit for time served which he has served and he will get out so why don't you just agree to that yet but i just don't understand mine the court asked me to concede i cannot concede that the defense arguments are appropriate or well i think you know look i'm not asking you to concede that they are correct i'm asking you if you in fact agree to what you just said then why don't you just agree to like because we have the issue pending before the court on me so we you're asking us to withdraw  opposition as opposed to all i'm just asking that like in all sorts of cases if the parties actually agree on what should happen they agree on what should happen they settle the case i mean in in it's over there's zero p has an order that they didn't think was proper but they were trying to do what they believed the court wanted them to do so all the government's looking for is a clarification on what that order should say ok i'm i'm not and i'm not sure that i have authority on behalf of my office to make that stipulation ok chain of command will will save you the process thank you