begins when the man enters the country and it doesn't end until he's discarded by the question authorities so that covers generally temporally a long period of time and he's go to you your plain language discussion for a moment isn't it in part relying on the application and i believe we asked you to look at the case which suggested that where the application  guidelines anywhere example for this because what happens when that happens in the united states is reflected all of the offense level it is criminal history or it's nothing as far as the guidelines are concerned but i can use a different example which shows the interplay a little better which would be an physical restraint was the best the client's conduct which is the reason you don't want to have a gun at the time the physical restraint takes place it's outside the apartment where the gun is you can't have a constructive possession of a firearm if you have no ability to access the gun  see well i think we were charging based on the fact that he's in his apartment other times i don't think he has as a general matter have it at that particular moment i mean that may be when he's arrested but the fact that he's in his apartment other times it's found in his apartment would be enough for us to  while i accept i think the issue isn't nearly working the record in actually decided on holding with the court only the only question it was looking at at that point in time was boise actually committing the offense of constructive possession while the strength was taking place because you know the gun on him when the restraint was taking place in the court said yes because he was the owner of the apartment and he had to been in over the gun that was in the apartment but it focused on whether that be at the commission of the offense was taking place the time they didn't consider whether had to be some relationship between the two and i think that but it is true that instant offense has a meaning in the guidelines i'll be it one that comes from the commentary it's used in other positions of criminal history that benefit the government and they're used by the government including for a one point one deity i don't think even if that would be the best interpretation of this in the fence that it's inconsistent or plainly erroneous to say that inside the fence includes relevant conduct particularly when the commission's concern there was to prevent double county which is the problem i would occur in the hypo that i gave where you had an ongoing fraud in the firearm that was possessed during the offense was unrelated if you allowed if you adopt interpretation that for criminal history it wasn't part of the offense conduct because it was kind of a several offense then the fine it would get criminal history point the two to prevent double counting and recognizing their works the government's advantage here to have it in this particular case to say i was inconsistent i don't really think we can say that i do think the problem here is not the inconsistency between that wording and the application of it but the brak of the find its interpretation one the one point three and i think it really distorts what is offense conduct and what is criminal history and that's ultimately the problem if you treat something it really breaks away from the kind of real offense conduct  responsibility of the facts both of those are tied to specific offense conduct and require relationship to it's not merely in the time period before committing the a fast the time period after committing the offense it varies relationship to the offense conduct so i think those are before during and after but in the context of a relationship between offense conduct thing it's also a point to look at is the second circuit noted in taylor that we're dealing with relevant conduct and there has to be some relevancy to the offense conduct to get the point of this rol could account for that but it would diminish the guidelines to say that to not still interpret them as you would have before booker and to require that the the provisions work in tandem with the one another to rely on contacts and the interplay between the two i you have something that is clearly criminal history conduct it clearly is not related also the offense conduct and given that you always get two points for enhancement you have minimum base offense levels in the various guidelines you have a disproportionate