circuits that have said on the concluded that he went to sentences imposed it's at the time the district court imposes the sentence and and that's it and it doesn't it doesn't apply to cases that are pending pending appeal we take a different position than that the th circuit in united states v clark is still applicable law in regards to when the imposition of a not a final sentence it is subject to review by the appellate court to determine if the sentence is correct  by stating that a sin is that has not been imposed is is congress referring to a sentence that is final or just a sentence as regards to imposition just by the district court the congress could have said imposed by the district court it did not as the government said the congress could have said imposed in his final but it did not so there's indignity into what congress minutes as far as in closed the senate's being imposed would you agree that it was imposed if let's say on a hypothetical case the sentence was appealed and the court affirmed it would be imposed on the date the district court imposed the district court had the defendant in court for sentencing is that correct or are you saying that if there's an appeal it can never be imposed until days that potentially the liberty interest of mr gomes is substantially affected so when you look at congress's the i think there's evidence of congress intent when it was passing the the court looks at this case in season that taking into account the congressional intent that it's clear fine on twenty four c and that the case is clear from the congressional intent of enacting that statute that an individual should not be subject to a twenty five year sentence but isn't that a question of retroactivity i mean if it boils down to whether or not it's retroactive and we don't have anything to support a legal determination or rest our hat on that it is retroactive is that correct that's correct your honor retroactivity is an issue congress did not specifically state that it was retroactive it's not a constitutional issue in regards to the retroactivity of the statute perhaps though not brief perhaps the due process constitutional issue in regard in that matters for the limited interest is concerned and given the magnitude of the the penalty to mr goma's in this case the argument that we made in our looking at the fact that congress wanted to correct and clarify other words the congress used to clarify that a subsequent conviction for nine that legislative history of general matter they were trying to overturn if you if you will or are to tell them from court that's not what we want our that's why they moved us what we said before but likely they look at the issues that would occur if they opened up indoors box to go back and correct all these things is that occurred so the response to that i think is can be challenged in the terms of when you if you apply the  principle that the imposition of the sentence congress met when the sentence is final imposed when it is finally after such as mr jones that's twenty five he missed it by twenty five days what about that the person that missed it by one day it is such a significant amount of time of an that's the way that i see that we can get there in that regard the th circuit has agreed with that idea basically saying it's finally impose include in the court case but again to go back to the other circuit that have stated imposition of sentence is when the district court imposes sentence at that time and that time on on are we going to have circuit splits in this regard because of that in those two the  thing on the one thousand and four seek counseling that would seem to be a resentencing on those counts but the government's position is that the statutes terms do not apply to resentencing it only applies to the original sentence even more importantly here in  two thousand and seventeen and then it's never modified again but setting that aside for that case were there is resentencing the government's position would be that by the terms of the statute because it says a sentence has becomes final now to support his argument gomez points to the word clarification in the title of section four of the three and he relies on authority regarding amendments to the sentencing guidelines but there are several problems with this argument st of all a word in the title moreover even under the authority that he cites section pro three would not apply to him because it affects a substantial change so even if you look to the three regarding guideline amendments because it effects of stance of change it cannot apply to him on clean say that it applies to preempt offenders if a sentence has not become final as of december st two thousand and eighteen it says it is and has not been imposed and as a rd circuit held in a villainous imposition of sense and finality are two different things moreover congress enhanced penalties for certain drug trafficking crimes congress specifically quote require that certain prior convictions have become final notably congress did not include that are now to finality language in determining when section four of the three is applicable and i also wanted to address that there is no circuit split here because even he relies on clarke to hold that imposition of sentence means final imposition after appeals have been exhausted but every circuit court to address clark has remained ending so even the th circuit has not followed clark in the context of the st act and every other circuit to interpret what imposed means in the context of four o three or section for one which is again identical to standard view is plain error because he could have easily objected when at the resentencing hearing the district court said it was imposing supervisor at least subject to the same terms and conditions as previously stated now in the court's original judgment which was entered into the record in june two thousand and seventeen more than a year before the reasons in hearing the judgment including for special conditions so when the district court said that it was imposing supervised release subject to the same terms and conditions as previously stated goma's could have easily objected how do you disagree with those four special conditions included in the court's prior judgment or if you had any confusion whatsoever about what the district court meant when he said it was imposing the same terms and conditions as previously stated because you could have it objected and did not therefore plain  sentencing kind of had sacrosanct like elocution and some other things that yes somebody can object but we've been fairly consistent in terms of congruity between oral statements we kind of hit the pause button a little bit because we say the district court should do what the district court should do and i don't see any sets no where but as much yard was even if it is you're saying there was no as written judgment imposing the same terms and conditions previously stated in his prior judgment additionally domus can satisfy the rd prong of cleaner because he fails to show how the outcome would have been different had the district court specifically articulated each of those four conditions into the record even if the court had to articulate each of those four conditions he is questionable or gomez has even disputed them as they were outside the mandate and he had waived the issue in the st appeal but even if it that issue in the reconsideration of the special conditions had not been precluded by the mandate he fails to show how the articulation of those special conditions would have changed the court's mind as to the propriety and appropriateness of them in this case the record moreover indicates that the district court would not have done so regarding the condition requiring the drug treatment beyond the fact that gomez was under a state court order to engage in drug treatment at the time he committed the instant offense himself requested just drug treatment at least during his incarceration to help him maintain his sobriety moreover regarding the treatment of the condition recurring treatment for domestic violence the most gomez's unrebutted criminal history showed several convictions for assault and domestic violence including one involving his current common law wife regarding the condition requiring the payment of a court ordered child support payments come as himself admitted that he was ordered to pay child support payments and that he was in  rears and a credit report confirmed those facts and finally that regarding the condition requiring the defendant to provide requested financial information to the probation officer that condition was clearly a means to effectuate the condition requiring him to pay his child support payments now so gomez makes no effort to show that had the court articulated those special conditions into the record it would not have imposed them and the record gives no in cape indication that that would have been the case as such he fails to show that the alleged air affected your honor briefly in regards to the special conditions supervised release of the court's aware there was an on bond hearing in the united states the diggles i think that that case will resolve this case in regards to special conditions so i think  all counts and in formulating a sentence in and doing a downward variance it took all counts in the consideration of formulating that sentence so truly it is a recent unsing that the district court made even though i guess in foresight the hypothetical question becomes what if the sentence was continued until after december st when this was and acted with the court of appeals have allowed that with the to mr gomez and others is not opening pandora's box to allow the district court to go back and to revisit mr again as a sentence in light of the st step that the finality issue as far as many sentences imposed though not adopted by many circuits is still out there and available to be done it doesn't open pandora's box it does create a bright line to see to be addressed congress is likely issued in regards of making it retro and it serves the purpose of congress's intent for an individual mr gomez's situation to not face a twenty five year sentence as this is a swing of two hundred and forty months on to this individual and given that and given that dargon there is ambiguity we've been we wouldn't have been having litigation if there was an ambiguity in the case and what imposed means and i know that there will be more cases that are coming down in other circuits as this is kind of an issue of st impression in one sense is the st step in fact applying to cases pending appeal so in that regard we would ask the court respectfully to remain in the case back to judge god be in light of the st step back and allow him to serve the court ably not only in this case but lots of cases are court heavily depends on in appreciates the work of you and all the court appointed attorneys that take on these cases to brief them to come