however we would like to suggest that looking at the bigger picture kind of the end result the outcome of what has happened to mr flair and the situation we would like to request at this panel  take another look at certain events which have transpired in summary of what took place mr hoyer said in one nine hundred ninety he made a series of poor choices committed some very serious crimes for which he was ultimately convicted  state court and federal court while there can be no question that these crimes were very serious matter the rights in the final analysis we have a situation in which no one is stabbed no one is made no one is permanently disfigured  whether it was one year well twenty years it was going to be a sentence so it was not indefinite because it was subject to whatever the federal government well but there's a series of cases in about have this kind of a situation where the state of the state sentenced works limited temporarily to be imposition of another sentence which was a fixed amount several of them court however i mean in order for him to have a temper to act upon that sometimes he would have had to understand what the trial courts attempt wise with respect to the state sentence which is for which reason we submitted a portion of the impropriety of the certain that you're arguing to the snows person twenty years ago there's nothing new about orders by the appellate court i don't know that that's the case how so this would be the first one to so a whole i would have to review i would have to review all of the cases you know that of statutory interpretation where ever since clarke it's not apparent that the legislature has filed any amended statute in any way in order to counteract the interpretations adopted by park and also  senses must be served independently that's additional punishment that's the whole point of selective sentencing so that is the reason why the defendant was not entitled to credit for time served as he requested credits credit for time spent in federal because it did not really matter from the perspective of the defendant too much practically speaking which came first because he was assessed criminal history no matter which  the illinois court going first the judge specifically said i'm not considering and therefore didn't post any aggravation based on the fact that he had been found guilty of several serious federal fences back to be taken into consideration a which came first he was going to have consideration of his criminal history in either write concurrently by federal law they were to write consecutive late now that doesn't necessarily mean that the judge did not determine this but just merely by not ordering them current sec so the question becomes why is that a ctual determination of the judge that's not entirely their inference can be made by not ordering your current so essentially when the finnick comes to this court at this point he says he claims that he's no longer able to so those were not the issue of it mr sample is not something that impacted from sensing and it to the extent that that defendants claiming error in federal district court it's not something that this court can remedy it's something that before anyone would still deny double credit sends credit for time served in federal custody at least as to the one count of attempted murder in which the victim was severely injured and i find that have been made by the church postman and there's no way that he would be entitled to stand credit asvab face and that would have to be served at least at one fifteen year serve her subject they say this is an older case would have to be served independently i don't know that the  there was no order by the judge has meant to make these consecutive it was merely a stay of execution which was brought on by the fact that he was prosecuted by writ and that as the only course had no jurisdiction over his person he remains in that time so there was an attempt to be careful about not stepping on the toes of federal authorities who had custody of the defendant and ensure that the law followed that he had been and the justice of this result or the fact that he claims they killed his continuing incarceration is unconstitutional because he claims he is fully rehabilitated i have not seen any case cited that shows how continuing incarceration becomes has no question what the state has argued an indication in the record that the federal court was misled about the impact of the trial court because the government specifically argued in fact time that the reason why it was acceptable for the federal sentenced a few hands on account of the illinois conviction was because the illinois state court was prevented from ordering them to write consecutive and therefore directly after that the federal  but nevertheless i mean we don't need to show that there is harm if you know i'm actually recorded for it we simply need to show that it is but i think that it's clear that it's not merely a technicality and that's what's important here