a then two year old indictment violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial and you repeated it heading if i'm not mistaken in your reply brief in so i read that on appeal you are only relying on the nine months she could have done up until july twenty sixteen but because the government waited until december of that year to indict her i mean to arrest her on the two year old indictment it completely foreclose the possibility that she would ever have the opportunity that is reduced sentence in the state court in its judgment ran her sentences concurrent to any sentences she was currently serving so i think there is a pretty good chance actually she would have gotten that but second we don't have to anticipate it because we have proven that she lost the opportunity and parole from your state sentence so that's three months is an estimate in actuality ended up she ended up i think not being paroled to later that's not in the records i like i don't want to delve deeply into that but i think that that estimation doesn't  federal sentence early she would have started her federal funding to begin to run when she enters primary custody of the bureau of prisons right and so if she paroled earlier she would have paroled to little to parole from the state with the witness out of the fringe of the jury without any cross examination as opposed to just say what he thought might happen yet and i think it's ultimately for us the strategic choice being forced between the return of the indictment and her natural parents are the second is whether or not mysterious is the fams was impaired i think the case comes down to that they are not the exclusive factors but i think those are the critical things that the s amendment is trying to reconcile and it was also the focus of judge moore's ruling below now the reason i'm here and because the defense has made so much of seltzer in the briefing i will immediately from el paso county in colorado springs another one from jefferson county and one from denver county so we've got a federal case we've got a first degree murder prosecution and we've got these three other warrants for your honour's just the prosecutors have to make decisions about what's important we're dealing with all these jurisdictions and to some extent i don't deny the facts of the case all the importance of the technical details but trying to reconcile all these interests can be challenging and shuttling a dependent back and forth takes up a lot of resources for the marshals for the bailiffs and the state it can be become quite frankly a nightmare trying to schedule things because they don't just go to court wants to go to court for five before this court seems to be whether that eight or nine month period right government the district court kind of suggested that maybe it was because she was participating in a c all right there were two periods where there were two actually acts of cooperation and it may be confusing on the record and part of that is sealed and part of it i there was another form of cooperation that she was engaging in right of the judge alluded to that yes indeed to think that wasn't didn't seem impressed with that as a reason and i mean you did i mean i'm saying you i don't see where you offered any reason on the record for that period of the ray and so that seems to me rather strongly against you as to the reason for the way we have the cooperation on making an effort here it's not like she was delaying and she's not getting anything and it's because they're using her because they want her to continue to cooperate is what the judge seemed to be saying any didn't think that was a reasonable basis for the  free associate attorney they all knew about the federal case and they were the quire and if any kind of resolution could be made and i still don't believe there was any specific request that when you do something about this because turned out she was she got you know she was sent into the same prison without bail and i think it just transpired that way it's more or less standard procedure and here you look back and say well maybe it wasn't really necessary that would be saying well maybe she could have remembered more but as judge kelly correctly pointed out they didn't ask and you can't really claim someone couldn't remember something when you didn't nashton the questions anyway and the questions that would have been asked and if speculating they'd been answered in a certain way would incriminate in the toilet because she would have had to say all those drugs those are my drugs that well that was there was no last opportunity here not an opportunity protected by the sixth amendment to the extent there is some question as to whether or not loss of a sentencing opportunity is generally your appearance and answer to a charge sense things that the other end and it's not quite the same interest but the interest here was still protected whatever the interest was because the question of whether these two sentences should be consecutive or con current was presented to a judicial officer just wasn't the state judicial officer judge moore had to make that decision she had been sentenced she got a great plea deal because she she got a four year sentence for being an accessory to murder she ended up in federal court as a felon in possession and judge moore said these are completely different matters i will not run the country she had the opportunity it just didn't come out the way she want largely speculative they call in her state attorney to testify and judge mark was open land credulous said i don't think you understand how the court system works and he was the one that heard that testimony he also thank you very much thank you government not to arrest her sooner and she suffered prejudice during that time and that's all we ultimately need to shall i say a lot of times that's personal thank you thank you very much well presented by both sides in your briefing and your argument today if you in the last