at this time we would like to ask for two minutes for rebuttal we'll try to help you with a little clock there to just watch it when it goes down so when you get to two minutes if you want to save some time well means perfect thank you this court should  i was troubled by the fact that it seems like everything your client was looking for personally he's already achieved as i understand it he wanted his good time restrict credits restored and that and expunged he has not if if if if the if your honor looks at the second it was judicial notice that was filed which is the hernandez declaration attached to that is a copy of things by going to why that response is wrong when my colleague on the other side filed this and there's a declaration from a a from the minister from the bureau of prisons and attached to that is a copy of mr valdez is a disciplinary record and the violation is still on there but the violation itself and i hope you are to talk it fifty page eight i don't think it was made a part of the excerpts of record  sanction for loss of the time credit has been expanded yes but the sanction for his commissary is still listed along with a violation yes so i'm looking at the record correctly here your argument as i understand it is that he is still and entitle to some additional relief because he's potentially subject enhanced sanctions assuming that he'll pick up some violation in the future yes because because th harsher punishment also this has been addressed in terms of the in terms of the discipline in terms of the disciplinary violation context in wilson the thing about wilson though is that is that in end wilson the argument was that this was a this was a little consequence because that violation would be used in parole hearings and the court said that this doesn't apply because it's too  there because because a pro hearing is discretionary and has one and a violation just one of many factors this case is different though because we know that a violation is used directly to should refer to inmates prior discretionary record also the hernandez that the ration that we've been talking about states that the bureau of prisons policy is to assess punishment based off of previous you're alleging would not be the case or controversy requirement it's too speculative you don't know what's going to happen in the future why would your client have standing in this case to ask for anything further to be done since he's re that that once a liberty interest has been has been established once the case went to his case has made it through even though that good time that liberty interest has been returned does not necessarily the case  spencer recognize this for differentiate that because they said that this wasn't a court of consequence because that violation would be too speculative in parole hearings but in been our case is not about a parole hearings is about disciplinary punishment within the prison and we know that that violation is a direct consequence it's not it's not speculative in the way that it would be used in a we're all hearing therefore it is a federal right you don't know well anyway we do know because he's acknowledged that he gave the other inmate the his his account number that money was received in as you can write the issue though is that we don't know the context of that right i think and we don't know why he gave the registration number we don't know when the appeal happened we don't know if this is even connected to any of this besides besides those three lines which are out of context we have no actual actual independent evidence of any of this but we have if you want to remind you of your time it's up to you and keep going with your one fifty three now if you want to save your time to come back to rebut or you want to continue now i would like to save some time for ok you are very good thank you this as i think you mentioned previously this good conduct time has now been restored and therefore the the sole remedy sought by the old as is no longer available because it's been restored and the moot what are their collateral consequences your opponent suggested there are because of what he claims is still on the record why is that not the case well i think i think you hit the nail on the head when you said speculative speculative to say that he'll be punished in the future as a result of the p c section three twenty violation why don't they just expunge the record if no one's ever going to use it for anything that that's a very good question i'm not sure of the answer to that but i will say that i think that the argument that the case is no longer moot due to the  three twenty eight violation and i think that argument is a red herring this case is not about whether or not t c eye has the authority to determine about a code violation this case is about whether or not t c has the authority to actually think in or discipline an inmate for a code violation moreover i want to point out that you know the record shows that there is more than sufficient evidence for that code violation to determination to be made  would be used in some way to enhance any future punishment you know the answer to that i do not know the answer to that actually my my assumption would be that it would not be counted towards for their support that the president determination that valdez did violate that code and i just don't think there's any basis for this court to overturn that determination that was made by the prison if i underst or more moderate category offenses in order to have a good time credit affected in that had not occurred in this case so i believe that's correct yes ok so that's correct that he didn't violate the regulations so since the good time credits been resort and he didn't violate the regulation why would anything remain on the record at this point that is a very good question i'm not i'm not entirely sure of the answer to that are you are you by chance authorized so for our purposes of this case i gather you're saying that arguably since this was at one point a problem that it could be considered in the future right in terms of a future violation well i mean i think i think there are two points to be made one is that the particular regulation in question was repealed in two thousand and eleven and secondly i think it's  that's a slightly different question which is why i asked if you knew the answer to whether it be enhanced the regulation has been repealed yes new regulations are in place so i take it that any future violation he may pick up that's the prior violation albeit under the prior regime is still there on the record so that right now and the question of under the new this military regulation is that full violation on the record going to be utilized to basically enhance future punishment i think that's the argument they're trying to advance a school why the case is now not moot because there's still an additional relief of expungement of that violation from the record right now anderson i understand the argument and i think i think the answer to that is that the the violation itself is supported by the record there's more than enough evidence to support that finding by the prison officials that mr valdez violated collateral consequences on the basis that when you're making a claim like this that isn't quote contingent upon a can do petitioner is violating the law getting caught and being convicted and then i'm adding my words sever standing doesn't that solve your problem yeah i agree i don't think there's a case and controversy on think it meets the standard i guess i'm not among clear as to why you cannot find any answer why whether this could be expunged and whether it could be used i mean isn't there someone you can ask i mean it's a simple question yes or no because i would ask the court if i could submit as opposed to hearing brief on that issue you're doing great people up the good work disciplinary action in general not just the good time credit the actual violation we say was was was was and was not was not allowed for giving  i misunderstood your pleading with ike i thought you were trying to do was to get the good time credit restored for your client right now and that the plea in our in mitchell pleading it so you want to get that by using what you said was a violation of law that was your hook to get the good time credit read return write this he's got that return so that's what i'm struggling with here yes there may be future collateral consequences but the reality is what you prayed for i e the restoration of the good time credit has occurred you have as a result of your fine work but nonetheless you got what you prayed for did you  has contacts that involve like chicago and spencer wilson they all involved the petitioner receiving their liberty interest their good time credit or whatever back but the case was still not moot because there were these c