i think the biggest problem here is that the federal district court judge didn't understand how california law works at the moment sentencing he said you know i think that california court judge that no no i'm saying that the federal district court said he didn't have the authority to do that that which was wrong but then what happened a hundred days later and that's under california welfare and institutions code seven thirty seven he was brought back he had a different attorney all it says was there was a previous conflict we don't know what it was but he had a different attorney he was brought back in front of the dane judge the same judge gave him one hundred twenty days and that's how our seven hundred thirty seven operates and that's kind of backed up by penal code seventeen me where it says that if you go through the california youth authority and complete your parole then for all purposes races that first sentencing entirely you might as well just throw it out because it doesn't exist anymore even though it had says this is a felony doesn't matter what he said the first time he didn't say it the second time so then he treated it like a in the event that there is a diagnostic study and recommendation of who by the director then the judge who approved the commandment with one hundred twenty days and so on was there as a diagnostic study and recommendation approved by the so but it says on their own motion that's that's i think it's a key that that the defendant or in this case the committee on their own authority on their own motion can bring this back to the court for their response that i mean that's basically what it was they went to the court and said well i want to be we sentence and the court accepted it so i don't think after what he said after the first sentence saying that he would have done it without some recommendation there i'm it's just i can't imagine that he cooled off in a hundred days the judge sentenced him initially it's the same judge and he went ahead and and the thing is he gave him one hundred  reading this record superior court judge in california treated his case as a felony and as an act of leniency allowed in adult felony to serve their time in a california youth authority it was not recent city per se the individuals brought back into court and you're in credit for more time and then placed on parole almost by definition you can't be paroled from a misdemeanor but everything that is in this more every case might go back because every judge was sentencing under hood belief that the sense in guidelines was mandatory was certain discretion and now since they're not mandatory perhaps there are that's a is kind of a tricky case and that even if we agree with your position that he was originally sentenced to a felony but the spirit court judge did later seems inconsistent with his having previously adjudged in a felony and at least as i'm inclined understand well california along with superior court judge did if you're right that it was originally a sentence to a felony he was incorrect as a matter of california law in allowing the early release so even if you win on that telling argument nonetheless there's something a little squirrelly that went on in a superior court and as i read  judge reid said boyle that was rather his view as to what happened if judge reed were freed from the guidelines and so he didn't have to categorize this yes or no a felony and then come within the guidelines but he could treat the behavior of the spirit court judge as in some sense ambiguous how do we know that judge reed would have thought the sentence reasonable given that he's no longer confined by am i don't really like to get into discussing the personalities not them characteristics of individual judges but i will make an exception in this case some will say that i think very highly of judgement but that's not my question as any practical matter i think what the court is suggesting here is that the defendant be allowed in the circumstances to make her collateral attack on her going california conviction claiming that it wasn't even a conviction only a misdemeanor something point is that california courts do parole from a civil commitment so again the government made a mistake in applying how federal law works in parole and how california juvenile law works in parole are two different stories so you can have a civil commitment who was released on parole so it doesn't mean that the man has a felony second of all  i would have to say under booker that this is going to have to be ended this court came out friday with the united states versus ruiz alonso and i'm sorry i don't have i have a cite for you but i don't have the copies because when i saw it i was already at a computer that had no printer so here's the number numbers zero three five zero one two five it came out for eleventh two thousand and five it says has to be renamed it because you cannot say the judge would have pole impose the same sentence under booker and that was ninth circuit panel on friday that released that opinion and published so again i have to ask you to look at not only well for an institution something and he went ahead and made this a misdemeanor after originally sentencing him as a felony and it can't come back as a felony now it's too late and nobody has any other questions and thank you very