morning morning when the problem with this case is that the judgment rested on mistaking the grounds first mistaken ground tend or take care of his perceived shortcomings of the state courts affected and has to deal with the murder cases so incorporate that the  penalty or punishment for the for the murder cases into the gun charge for the nine twenty four c and it all ended up with resold that was not intended by the jury the judge wanted those three used to commit one of them one of the murders that was the subject of the state's sentencing yes your honor and the district court decided that they were not related to the drug case that's why i didn't go with the cross reference but he did consider that fact in imposing the some come for oh yes that's what i'm saying and what's wrong with that well you rather doubt it was a matter for the state court if he had decided that the murder cases were not related but that was for them or for the state court to take care of fundamentally that you we can't tell from this record whether the sentence the judge imposed was the sentence the judge intended to impose a right and that's because if i understand your argument all the indications are that he expected the senses to run concurrently rather than consecutively correct and if he was clear in knowing that they were going to run consecutively your contention is we can't tell from this record he would have imposed the that they can't run consecutively does he intend to impose the same sentence yes so you're arguing out the i'm certainty that you say applies that that affected the judges to term but that affected that affected the judge the trim nation to impose the three hundred sixty months on come for the judge might revise that in light of the way the state sentence yes and what do we make of the fact that he did revise it was he more lee says they have to run concurrently he's advised you can't make him run concurrently he issues a written sentence that doesn't say anything one way or the other about concurrent or consecutive what's the significance of that on your view first of all my view will be that what will stall two  so how are we to interpret the revision other than him to say all i guess i don't have the into i need to make it consecutive well he intended to he did not say that he didn't know want the  judgments to run concurrently he just a partner was persuaded that that he did not have the authority on there to so it's basically a failure to explain the sentence argument in which if he had just said from the beginning three hundred sixty months no explanation you say you got this why are you doing three hundred sixty months and you say it is enough in the record for us to think that the reason he picked ran sixteen months is because he thought they would run concurrently yes because it is should it was monster later it was the revision of the sentence concurrent versus consecutive occurred before the state sentence was imposed yes and it did not it only court to alter the sentence now you're on or no he he i mean he just did i saw you know and your best evidence that the district court would have given a different length of sentence if he had known about the state court sentence is what he says the judge just statements police statements in court when he consecutive that's what he wanted the district work and then it's a sort of a funny situation because we know at the time he revises it that he was running the risk that the judge we want to put it that way of issuing a sentence that in fact could run consecutively because he's been advised that legally that is just a possibility and he nonetheless took that risk with an expectation we have no reason to think that it would run concurrently but he knows he's taking the risk of that so it's just it's a little strange now ok now we know that his hope for result didn't come about to ask him would you give the same sentence i don't quite know but that seems like an odd thing to be looking at usually we're interested at the time of the sentence what did you intend and at the time of the sentence what he intended was the the sense on california's got to be consecutive was a matter of law to the states so even if the judge dramatically reduced the length of the s and the parole system is alive and well here in puerto rico is that yes thank you thank you defense counsel's claiming that there is no explanation for the amendment judgment and we'd like to point out that the amendment judgment is precisely the relief socked by defense counsel in their i  motion where it's where they stated that where they request that the district judge remain silent as to the consecutive and concurrency issue precisely to effect the intent of the court that was the information that was given to the district court and that was correct as a matter of law since the federal court has primary jurisdiction in this case in which under which circumstances the state would be don't want to determine whether or not his sentence is to run concurrently or consecutively as to the issue  give some explanation for the three hundred sixty month that's so on that basis we would say well there will be an argument for vacating remaining to the district judge to say well could you please explain why you thought three hundred sixty months was appropriate here we have an explanation of why and it's that they'll be concurrent so why wouldn't we be more demanding of an explanation since the only reason you've given is one that your actual sentence suggests can't be the reason since you're conceding it could be consecutive must be consecutive does seem to me there's a fairly strong argument to say to the district court well why did you pick three hundred sixty months now knowing it's consecutive well under statute it's consecutive but as a practical matter in this case that cannot be effected because it is these thick court the state prison system to be more specific that is the one that's going to decide the federal court has no control over the prison bureau of the state so that he seemed to be under a misunderstanding on that point from the only evidence we have of the record because he says at one point if i understand something like they're not going to be able to do it differently then i want them to do it that's that's correct your honor he did say that during the sentencing however as as it is clear all that discussion about concurrency slash consecutive issue was fixed and the amendment judgment pursuant to rule thirty five because it was an illegal status that's one then asked what explains the length of the sentence actually imposed what on the record gives him like explanation for why he chose three hundred sixty months the only thing on the record that explains it seems to be wrong which is that they all run concurrently rather than consecutively so don't we need some explanation for why you picked a sentence of this length given that they're going to run consecutively well i think the record read as a whole makes it pretty clear that the judge was going to impose a very lengthy sentence in this case at many many a time during the sentencing hearing including at defense counsel urgence the district  framed its sentence pursuing truth three fifty five three factors as a variance those factors in this case included two murders one of which was an undisputed leader as the five counsel has already conceded  committed with the firearm for which he was charged with under ninety one twenty four c the judge also mentioned the particularly gruesome details that he that he found a troubling with regards to these any sentence would have to be consecutive i believe so your honor yes ok and did the government separately advise the district judge to that effect after the  where they what did they say in their informative motion they they agree with the government they knew to be consecutive and that is where the defense asked the district court for the amendment judgment which was subsequently entered exactly as the defense had requested in this case so there's a i think there's an added suggestion in this record th district court might impose a different sentence account for given up to do so opposing counsel pointed out that the judge expressed some skepticism about the way in which the state court might respond to these murder convictions well there's no reason for that skepticism of the state court imposed one hundred four year sentence and so knowing that the court might not feel the need to factor that concern just upon the purpose or intention behind your sentence does not mean that your sentence becomes personal and reasonable and in this particular case the judge was very clear  that it was looking for the proper frame or candor which to impose a vat a sentence above the statutory minimum of five years keep going back to the point about the consecutive issue because the what was the advantage to the front of doing that since before he had said it was clearly concurrent how is it helpful to make it possibly consecutive from the defendant point of view other then if the defendant in doing that is suggesting to the judge are you sure you really want to stick with the same sentence and in response instead of the judge saying yes i'm sure no i'm not sure here's why i'm doing to him the judge could very well could very well have said well this is about what i intended for for him to or you could have said that it is intended and here's why and he said neither t on that issue was there a failure on the part of the state court the federal sentences in place the state sentence come subsequently was there some omission by the state court and not specifying the way in which the state certainly should relate to the federal sentence wow the state court sentence certainly is silent as to the issue i'm sorry the subject to which was this case since when he was before the state court for sentencing he was already subject to a federal centers right the presumption under puerto rico law like federal law is that it runs concurrently so in this case he government's position is that the defense has failed to show that he has suffered prejudice  since that's not in fact what's happening that in fact he is now concurrently serving those sentences is that would you are you saying that that is what is now happening that is not what is now happening on a what the defendant can do for relief in this particular case is when it comes either now to some kind of motion if possible or when he's transferred over to the state to request that the state run it state in this instance in this very particular instance where he was both under primary jurisdiction and sentenced first under the federal under federal authorities thank you thank you