which due to the disparate treatment of individuals such as mister washington and congress decided to change the law and make it so that mister washington was intitled to read tro active reduction of his sentence in this worksheet st step that the work that was produced by the probation department and provided to the court in the party which set out that mister washington under those rules the current sentencing guidelines was entitle to a ninety eight month sentence three duction from three hundred and sixty months to two hundred and sixty two months and that mister washington had served that two hundred and sixty two months  by september of two thousand and sixteen and with respect to mister washington he had been convicted of another crime after his imprisonment which also garnered garnered him at thirty three dollars max sentence which was consecutive to the yes now the st step after worksheet that was done by probation was very thorough in this regard and it completely reasonable reading for that st order and the reason for that is the court in its st order specifically adopted the st step act of work sheet which sets out that  computation and so i ask you know when we received the court's st of all there's three orders in the court there was the st order where the judge said the parties stipulated to the sentencing reduction and and that he was adopting our stipulation because kagan is rightly brought up catholic or the court and said hey if you think i stipulated to this you know in our stipulation it's specifically sad that we agree that calculation is right but we're asking that you maintain mister washington longer and i think the court would have had jurisdiction to do that but the nd order of the court same place to change that language that said the parties stipulated and it said we still adopt the st step work and so i when mister washington and i received that document showing that the court had agreed that he was  title to the time served and that when he adopts the st step that the worksheet which specifically says time served get a good two hundred and sixty two months that he would have served by september th or september two thousand and sixteen and the additional thirty three months would have all been served by march of two thousand and nineteen you know obviously mister washington is noticeably relieved and believes himself to be entitled to that relief and be released now no no appeal was taken from the court's nd order in this case and then the court when mister washington was not released i filed a motion to clarify and in the courts a word he said it was a motion to reconsider it was not a motion to reconsider when i was saying in my motion to clarify was clearly that the court should enter an order that he had served his full time you know in it because of the st apt worksheet with being adopted he should have recognized and did recognize it's our contention that mister washington had already served all that time and should have been eligible for immediate release what do we do with what that earned order i mean that's that's one of the things i'm having trouble with because it's almost why you know i know it's not a perfect analogy but it's almost like unusual mistake in a plea agreement or something like that where the district court comes back and says well all i know when i sat but i also meant something else erin and you sort of clarif well judge it is our contention as is the last two arguments in my brief that by him going through and making a change to the previous order that he had already adopted he was without jurisdiction to make that change i this that the u s attorney's office was also not confused which is why the u s attorney's office in the st instance said hey wait wait wait i did not stipulate to this much of a sentence reduction but the u s attorney's office did not breathe i noticed all sigh of relief after the court said well i know you didn't stipulate but i'm still adopting that the st step back to work she and i think the judge cannot go back  say you know i'm attorney flexion i should have sentenced him to the time served in this case and this case only and should have rejected the st step back to work sheet which also addresses the additional thirty three months that he was given in the other case you know i took there's no reading of the court's order or that st step back to work sheet that would adopt you know if the court did not intend to give him that little of time that tell you know maybe maybe if they've changed their mind and said hey i think he deserves the extra thirty three months on and on top of the two hundred and sixty two months that he would have i mean so he's already had an extra thirty three months during this time so by that view he's just he should have made if that was his original intent and i submit to your honor's that it really wasn't his original intent he would have made that clear to the part of he would have made it clear to mister washington that hey i know you've already served two hundred and sixty two months and you've already served an additional thirty three months and you could have been eligible for release under the st step dad but i'm going to give you additional time intent and he thought that there was an if he was what he basically says is it if that he thought that there was a meeting of the minds between us all and i think i don't think that there's a fair reading of that  with with you adopting the st step back to work i mean if that was his original intent what what do you do with the st step app worksheet that has the language in there that he had mister washington had already served the two hundred and sixty two months plus he had by september of two thousand and sixteen and since it's now march of two thousand nineteen that he's eligible for release how or what do you do with that that adoption if if that was the court's original intent because worksheet as a matter of routine because no one objected to it isn't that a plausible explanation for what happened here and that looking into footnote one of those of the or as it was issued twenty nine april wow and i suppose that that's true but i think maybe in addition to that he adopted it because no one objected and that was his original one tat i see that i'm into my rebuttal your muted mystery against step just didn't grant as much of a reduction as the defendant want to obviously the defendant wanted a reduction down to two hundred and sixty two months and if you look at the stipulation which the parties entered the government didn't agree to a sentence of two hundred and sixty two months it didn't agree that the probation office calculation was right the parties agreed that the defendant was eligible for a reduction down to two hundred and sixty two months but in point of fact the district court never ordered a reduction of two hundred and sixty two months instead what it consistently did in its three different orders was to pronounce the exact same court decided to do a time served to ninety five it's not didn't say from the record that question was never posed but i can tell you that as a practical matter if the judge simply orders time served as to the crack case  that the o p s going to do is to say you get credit for the time of your time sir as of the date of the order and that's what the here if on the other hand the district court reduced it to say two hundred and ninety five months well with the o p s calculation of two hundred and sixty two months but be that as it may the district court didn't accurately reflect the government's opposition that's why the motion to clarify and  our position is that the can record consistently and explicitly announced a sentence of time if if there is i guess our position is there is no ambiguity with respect to what was the pronouncement of the sentence that the district court may the only discrepancy here is the legal interpretation of what is time sir well that's a legal question and the district court in its rd quarter that was in response to the defendant's motion to clarify went into more detail and explained why it order to time served and what it was and what its intent was in doing so and explained that so that the reduction would apply only to the drug offense so that the defendant would still have to consecutively the the st order docket three hundred and twenty eight it talks about that the parties have stipulated to assume it's reduction to two hundred and sixty two months now the government says you didn't really stipulate to the thought there was a stipulation between the parties to the two hundred and sixty two months and then the judge says that reduction to sixty two is appropriate no how do we what do we do with  well judge i think you continue on with the rest of that sentence or rather the rest of that order over the paragraph because the defendant has already served at least two hundred and sixty two months this stipulated so  length the term does that really make sense it does judge the sentences that the time served because as he explains in his final response to the defense request to clarify what and it made captions greatest possible reduction so the only recommendation that's within the worksheet is for a sentence of time sir it says so explicitly they go on the counter but it figure well judge and i think you're right that that is based on the probation officers calculation of sixty two because if you look at the st line of that same paragraph as conferring with a sentence reduction of two hundred and sixty two day the district court the article three judge is the one who has the responsibility to decide what the sentence ultimately ought to be as that's what the district court made clear that it was doing is making that legal my brief unfortunately but they have to do a situation where unlike here there is an oral pronouncement of judgment followed by a written pronouncement of judgment in that situation i would say they're inconsistent with one another the initial and the later then the case law is and the directive to the circuit is that it's put upon itself is that the obligation of the reviewing court is to look at the record as a whole if there's ambiguity and then to discern the sentencing judge's intent if that's possible to do based on the record as a whole then implement  that if it is not with those provisos and conditions i just explained then i think the proper remedy would be to remand for the district court to clarify here i don't think there is ambiguity in the st instance respectfully disagree because the pronouncements were clear as to the bottom line i take your point with respect to the things we discussed if there is you conclude ambiguity it is not a consistent ambiguity and from the record as a i have nothing further to add unless the court has questions i think that the parties have fairly spelled out what the issue is as it is our contention that the judge's order when he says mister washington is sense to time served and in addition to that he's adopting that work at sentencing the st step act sentencing workshy that time served the only reasonable all interpretation have that language is that at that includes time served with the thirty three months on top of the time served of the two hundred and sixty two months and i think that to go back and change his order and give and edition al thirty three months to mister washington basically on top of that is not permissible all under the saddler case that cited in ari i mean it it resulted in a change of is a sentence that had been previously given in your skates and with that i would submit it unless you have other questions i think i think it's fairly well spelled out in the record