work for the federal defender's office i'm here in behalf of mr goulart of tourists it seems that the parties are in agreement i think is to the substantive rule in this case so perhaps the broader question is is  is is that it playing right i'm gathering that from the government's argument anyway respectfully i think that it is i have serious concern that the analysis set forth in castro for doing go where if the clause or the condition is not challenge to in the context of the direct appeal there's a pretty substantial waiver the and i think that this needs to be corrected i don't recognize that what went on here with judge had and was sort of it was like i put it as a question i didn't necessarily put it is an objection i think years of practice maybe we get conditioned to tone things down a little bit but it was a good  conversation with the court and i was seeking clarification of the condition and i think it's susceptible to the interpretation that the time does not wound by the use of the word inactive on top of which that word is expressed we set forth in the written condition of the judgment so i think there is a problem here and it does need to be corrected beyond that i don't have anything else right thank you thank you discretion and although appellant says that there is a problem in this case the record is clear in its totality if the court looks at the judgment and the oral pronouncement of sentence and then the clarification with counsel the district court was clear that although supervision after the completion of imprisonment and after to portion deportation after that supervision obviously can no longer be active and becomes inactive that does not mean that the supervision stops it does not mean in any way that it has been stayed or suspended or told and as we put in our response brief simply what we had here was a momentary miscommunication which does not rise to the level of a problem that needs this court to remain and for any reason what do you think the judge it hadn't had in mind in the use of that term in active your honor yeah it simply reflects the reality that once the defendant has completed his term of  imprisonment and have been ruled to move to his country of origin exactly the normal conditions of supervised release such as consulting your probation officer wright could not exist exactly despite the likelihood that a probation officer might want to take a junket to mexico for other purposes in addition to supervise mr torres that's something which we all know would unlikely to happen and that's why the condition said specifically that it will be an active while he's outside the united states but upon his return weatherly legally or go switch was cited by the appellant in that specific judgment the district court specifically said that while the defendant is outside of the united states that would be told and so that was a case where there was an issue but here again in the judgment at excerpt the record three it says it's in active if you say in active the time clock doesn't know it it runs or doesn't exactly tolling it doesn't yes and the oral pronouncement of sentence as well also said an act of your honor and in the clarification with counsel afterwards it's said that while he is outside of the united states he cannot be under active supervision so the government believes that the issue that has brought us here today was based upon a mistaken premise that in active means that there's a stay  established other conditions why not do that your honor of the conditions which were imposed were clear and they do show essentially the same thing that your honor has proposed which is that upon the completion of imprisonment he'll be turned over to ice for deportation because he's a non citizen and he has this conviction that after that he can no longer return to the united states but there's the understanding that it would be misconduct for mr torres to reenter the united states whether he returns to the united states with permission or without permission as stated by the district court he then has to respond  report into probation in order to be supervised again the failure to do so would then toll at that point his supervised relief his supervised release and supervised release at that point would stop running but nothing in the record shows that there's any intent by the district court to stop the running of his term of supervised release if he follows the  orders of the court in the united states if he completes his sentence of imprisonment is deported and does not return to the united states during that period of five years mr burleson is like you're argument the record the written judgment yes your honor and in the oral pronouncement of sentence as well which both say it's an active but neither no where does the court say that it stayed suspended or told and so the i didn't see it is the judgment what the judge says are words in the jury and sue it's the judgment is both i think your honor are accurate that both in the judgment of excerpts of record three and in the a pronouncement of sentence at fifty it says in active and so in the government's view what the district court did was reasonable and it was not an abuse of discretion just sort of begged for some clarification there and that the outcome is while somebody else is going to have to answer that at a later time and presumably that meant this court and if that meant this court then i had to bring it up and they shut down on the issue was i think your record is protected counsel and i'm here to further protect my record so i am here so thank you very much right we appreciate that thank you i