judgment of conviction that and what preceded it there's no question that he pled guilty to terrorism bank robberies of course and there's no question that the special assessment was the song the thousand dollars reflected all and he was restitution was ordered on a ten but you haven't we come to the line in the judgment of conviction on the total of eighty four months it seems like we we want to walk away from the reality you know that he had pled guilty to ten separate robberies why does that make any sense you know the best and you know from in hindsight the best i could say was it was likely a mistake the court might have intended to i mean first of all reagan's guidelines range which was mandatory at the time so that the sentence did invision and punishing him for ten robber calculate the guidelines and then impose that the total sentence on each count that is understood it but the court didn't do that in this case and if it if it was because the court was mistaken about the operation of mean and it's given those comments it's highly likely that the judge would not hope that he would get any sort of discount on a subsequent sentencing like the one he was in here but it all comes back to you know we i mean right now we're we're conjecturing we're talking about well what do we think the court mentor what did we think you know the court would ten robberies right that was not lost upon him for a second and so why isn't it fair against the backdrop of that pretty clear transcript to read the eighty four months through the prism if you wan call it that presumption of concurrence and thirty five eighty four why don't those two things combined because we i mean we have precedent and it's helpful precedent if  and you know i think when we go back and look the court knew it was sentencing mr bergen's to ten you know for ten offens thirty years of so it would be three years on each you know three years i mean sorry three years per robbery but i'm not and i'm bound by the guidelines but there was a recognition that sentence as a total term because in the federal system by statute where there are multiple terms of imprisonment they are treated as single aggregate terms and that's why it appears that way necessarily were lying on the statute no question the statute applies but no reference in the transcript that would say well of course everybody knows that if a consecutive or concurrent pronouncement is not made that concurrent control no there's nothing in there that present that however the lack of specificity as q concurrent or consecutive certainly doesn't mean that that judge you know assigned a single for all ten convictions in fact that sort of a sentence doesn't really exist in the federal if it's not it doesn't happen and that's why it would be it would make sense t clear such an error cannot be corrected at this point even years after the imposition a district judge may still correct a final judgment that in a criminal case to reflect the sentence he actually that's not what he did and we can't go back and change that now and for that reason and the district court here in roni asli imposed an additional three criminal history points result resulting in an erroneous calculation of the