matt let me start with jurisdiction i hope that our suffer mental briefs of have cleared up the issue and my apologies for the brevity of our status report the prison sentence has been served but mr smith still could have some benefit to favor the ruling in this appeal what is that benefit the benefit if what we would ask the court to do is directed district court to resolve this discretionary question of whether he should have gotten more credit for the time he spent in indiana and he could take that off of the term of supervised release so the term of supervised release is not mandatory in this case it's up to three years the district court of posed the maximum three years he could easily take two bit is it is it the product of a misunderstanding of the authority you know for the additional two months to be conferred in other words is it being sought in the name of a in that it's the guidelines say just take the eleven months off that's five k two point and what mr schmidt identified was well if you take a leaven months off i'm not going to get the full benefit because i actually served eleven  the district court clarified no i mean elmer's glue and if if you want to use omer's glue then you need to do is call your probation office that's that doesn't accord with how this chord looks at supervised release  supervised release is supposed to give defendants specific conditions to place them on notice of what is prohibited what is not it's not to delegate to the probation officer the ability to essentially determine whether this person can have lou or not or for any other sort of household substance we think a more tailored version of the condition might just read something like you may not use a psychoactive substance that impairs mental and physical functioning for the purpose of intoxication that seems to be the ill that the cord is trying to prevent that it makes some sense in light of mr smith's substance abuse history but this condition is  just overly broad it sort of brings to mind justice scalia's problem with the digital clause to the arbiter of criminal act or is as well if you if you have a descriptive item psychoactive substance that's standing on maybe it's fine so if you have a phrase like shades of red we can understand what that means but when you then define that would with confusing examples such as examples fire engine red light think the room navy blue or other colors that otherwise want to thread suddenly the entire definition becomes very confused and here we have what are understandably prohibited substances and then we throwing glue and when mr smith asked to clarify what the district or said you have elmer's glue you need to call your probation  may please the court brian writes for the united states i'd like to just briefly move through the three issues on the we agree with everything mr smith has said here he still has the possibility to obtain a benefit and  release condition if the court were to remand on the discretionary on the discretionary point think props the easiest way to resolve this is harmless error the judge said explicitly that he understood understood his discretion under occurring we're reminded and the district court judge said exactly that brought into court and said i believe that i know that i have the discretion but i believe that ninety nine months is the appropriate sentence that would satisfy the limited remaps we think that verbatim glue is included necessarily because it is a psychoactive substance we think that's tailored to mr schmidt because he has all the substance dependency so there is reason for the well i have one question for you and i am not meaning to nitpick on the transcript i just i recall it a little bit differently than you do on the glue business where what it looks to me like the district court said is no we're not we're not really covered you know get it all out of your house or something i think he was assuming that elmer's glue is covered but so long as you talk to your probation officer about that and you're fine and i expect my probation officers to use common sense yeah ok all right which is is the approach that was advocated for by the government in cases like them to say look let's just rely on common sense and that approach was rejected because he last thing that i would say the government thinks that the court has already said i have discretion to the court said i cannot do this i cannot give him additional time i can you know that's this is up to the bureau