first question is answered automatically if the implication of the first question is that he would play was involuntary i was wondering about that why do you want to have to play with stronger but that would be the implication of that and it would not be alternative well of the objection got sidetracked with actually taking the place that was present in the magistrate judge you look like you look like and how can i go ahead and i will erupt when i do something to the question of the legal question of how you decide what the sheriff's department as to what the project would be whether it would be something supervised by sheriff would be through a nonprofit whether it was manual labor happens at all or whether it happens at all and some of the factors as judge england mentioned i think is accurate about those who has that had the discretion to consider those factors in the particularities of this case so the record wasn't developed on those facts i think that's what you have your own from a problem then and you know how how like it's like because you're asking for  was trying to duplicate precisely what the state practice was by suspending people's driver's licenses thanks to far i do have a question and you cited to any authority or occasion in which the california state  square one and then he asked to decide given the context of what defense is need a raise whether he wants to go to the house all and dangers of going to trial this is a context where we are not in the record but i know from reviewing our file that he was offered the pl that he rejected the sentencing plea that he twisted my sentence he was offered a plea agreement the sentence he received and he rejected it that's not clear from the record but it is clear from my file that that happened so i think doesn't have to go to jail or does he have to come up with some other alternative whether it's in find him particularly if they keep in mind it goes a little bit back to some of the discussion you had earlier about juries in the other case we're talking about a lay person who had minimal contact  this is the core question of what's going to happen to him and it is clear from the record that when he pled guilty it was an open question as to whether mandatory whatever the language they are go that the law student for the government  trying to use about the ten days that it was in dispute the government wanted ten days the defendant's attorney wanted her counsel wanted a fine and there are other alternatives that didn't get discussed at that point think and were and i think it's really important for this court to focus on what actually happened before the magistrate judge because that's what this court is supposed to review not what the district judge said except to the extent that that can help to inform the ma the fairness integrity and public reputation of these proceedings before the magistrate court because of the distinction between our case and the pena case where in that case the court said that are neither the court nor the prosecutor had advised the defendant of the nature of the charges here of course we're not dealing with the nature of charges we're dealing with the statutory mandatory minimum and that was addressed by the prosecutor and that experience tells us that defendants make this argument for leniency all the time even when there is a statutory minimum sentence of five years ten years in drug cases i've i've been prosecuting for thirteen years i've heard this routinely votes  defendants and the family members make lenience pleas to the court it's not unsing even though there's a minimum sentence of statutory minimum sentence and even though the pork is imposing no more than the minimum so i don't think that their argument washes can you explain but also because mr gans didn't know about the minimum ten days because that had been offered in the police agreement which mr mcclintock refers to the government that what happened here was the defendant played straight up without  her minimum instead of ten days when you will be making the same argument i would and that's because the prosecutor discussed the mandatory minimum and the defendant comes into court yes it's important proceedings as perceived by the public the prosecutor does make a statement about the minimum sentence and that's good enough and according to the court's analysis in tenure if the government had made the statement in that case about the nature of the charges that would have been good enough or could have been good enough it doesn't say because it doesn't reach that issue to to overcome the impact of the public appearance of the fairness of the proceedings and the defendant did know of the statutory minimum sentence and the prosecutor did mention that it wasn't just completely ignored you know in the proceeding in the rule eleven proceeding else was the case in pia moving on to the second issue  the i think there again we have to look at what actually happened in the district court the defendant did not make an argument that he should receive work release or community service or anything else all he argued through his attorney was that the court did not have to post them and impose the mandatory minimum well even when you get to ok let's bring then this whole work release project that's handled through the state court and how they do it we understand now that the court does impose the ten year mandatory or ten i'm sorry tending that jury minimum and then it's either recommends or doesn't recommend that the person do it through the work project and then it's up to the sheriff to decide whether they do or the defense counsel could have raised this argument that they raised but they didn't i mean they didn't raise it until it went to the district judge there's something that's not discussed in either of the briefs  the sentencing guidelines which do not apply in this case because there's no because it's a class b misdemeanor and there's no real provision but by analogy under five c one point one there's  the ability for the court to impose some kind of substitute confinement times to substitute punishment was in ration but those involved things like community confinement or intermittent can trying moment or even home detention but none of them i do not i do not think and frankly i'm going on my memory i did have a chance to look up this point in your library before coming in today but i don't think that community service is one of the alternatives to incarceration that's identified in that guideline and i know that this court has addressed that issue before whether halfway house placement is the same as a confinement and has discussed whether community service can be substituted for confinement and then there's the whole issue of whether this court can impose where the magistrate court can impose an obligation on on the jailer to you for any particular program and i think that's a fundamental distinction between some of the assimilative crimes act cases in cases where the alternative to the punishment that's available in the state court is one that does not interfere with a coronet branch of government and similarly supervised release and set of probation but when it comes down to the penal logical policies of for instance the bureau of prisons in deciding whether a person has reached parole eligibility or not those are execution of the sentence and this court isn't doesn't have the authority really to impose that on the bureau of prisons and to the extent the defendant is now arguing that he should have gotten community service instead of ten days in jail he didn't said so at that point that magistrate judge i see my time's up has has cut off further discussion and never makes a ruling this is where i think he's fundamentally erred and whether i think this satisfies plane or if that's the way that you wish to analyse and analyze it is he's finally erred in deciding in telling the defendants at this point before he goes through the plea colloquy ten days means ten days or ten days might mean ten days you still want to plead and we'll resolve what i'm going to be able to do later