that situation the court this is its third reason and that's the only one we're concerned with and that in this particular respect that the sentence recommended is longer than the sentence recommended and imposed in another case while we relationship between the police is we submit was really incorrect the court said they were related we agreed they were related but for a very limited purpose and that is for a jurisdictional purpose what t i asked a couple of sort of practical questions yes my understanding is that all of the the defendants have finished serving their sentences and have been released and at least one of them has been deported as i understand it so  practical matter they're not being supervised by anybody at this point but the next question that i have which is he is more practical one is if we send us back to judge gonzales they're going to be recent and under the sentencing guidelines as they are now in effect as amended last december and as i read those guidelines she's going to be able to get within about two levels of where she i wanted to go and so as a practical matter she could do pretty much the same thing you know me and you know two levels is going on now too much in terms of like the sentence here why are we doing this well because we believe that she thinks that even under the guidelines fifty that she shouldn't even manipulate the sex to get to the place that you want to take we believe that these cases were significantly different the facts were significantly different there were reasons why we gave   that a more objective view of the situation would be would that have her realize that manipulating the guidelines again it's not something that in this case that that she should be in order to get educator from black or better term again think you can't manipulate you should manipulate the guidelines in the way it was done here think dr sentence you know four thousand pound cocaine case down to eighteen months ever win a battle and lose a war  cooler at that point time allowed her to find we agreed to safety average behavior we disagree with and we and we've made that part of our here because because we believe that the average kind of behavior problems that these men may or may not have been suffering from and if you don't need to come up with some fictional idea that these are poor people from a poor country and that they somehow got suckered into taking four thousand pounds of cocaine out on a boat in the open ocean it which is exactly what will the court here now that's what the court says if they just went out and shanghai these individuals and brought them in and out and somehow impressed them into different cases different charges and for no other reason the case has to be reversed on that particular ground and i'd like to save any time i got left or right violate the law is not valid at least in the context of appeals that are not on the conviction itself spencer was an appeal of the for role revocation in the case and it's now quite clearly  conclude that the case or controversy requirement is satisfied by general assertions or inferences that in the course of their activities response will be prosecuted for violating valid criminal laws we assume the respondents will conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction in this case is the court's already pointed out they have an order barred from this country and forcibly removed they have been told that they can i come back that there is no way they can come back i think they have in fact in the forty  aggravated felony that conviction the basis for the deportation is not an issue here therefore this type of speculation is exactly what's been barred by spencer and therefore this case is moot now one thing  with the language in our cases talking about supervised release being part of it's part of the sentence they have the mere fact that they're no longer in the custody of the attorney general in the bureau of prisons does  think what you're saying about the fact that they're not here and if we were looking at this on a very famous corpus i would agree with you that we don't have jurisdiction because they're gone but it seems to me that whether they are still subject to conduct but if they do then they are going to their punishment will be reinstated i think it's a result of the period of supervised really yeah i think that's an interesting point again this issue came up a supervisor as i think that if they ever come back to the united states the first thing they must do is immediately report and there are actually i'm sorry i don't know if there are actual cases that address that in the thirteen twenty six issue  two issues with regard to the sentencing the court was correct that the what we're quibbling about here is essentially two points because the average behavior i don't think there's a significant issue here that's something that clearly is squarely within the sounds question of the district court for the government  the this case is something that we don't have the thing and then in the code analysis it may have been altered forever so this isn't a case that we necessarily need to use to educate the edges or anybody else because we're special in a different world now that's my question i'm afraid what the new amendment that's now been passed can this ever happen again i see where that ends up let's put it this way your honor i'm not so sure that it could happen again this way i think that the just  its discretion to depart that the court sided sentencing disparities just one of several factors and that the other factors all were sufficient to justify the departure that was given and the language that i cited in my appeal  they would have been in here yelling that they'd completed their their sentence and why are we doing that true enough we did the pork come once again they can be they can be brought back into the united states either by sending them a letter and that's not death in the grand scheme of things these were the these were leaves people who are minimally involved we don't disagree with that in fact we agree they are minimally involved but that doesn't mean that their behavior within their responsibility was for a departure it can't be in different cases where there are different charges and that's clear from the cases that that's clear from copernic one response to the point that was made that the charges were us if i were defense counsel i could have argued that i thought of this case because there was one hundred sixty five pounds of cocaine found floating in the debris field nobody on that other boat were seen to be on have their hands on it or even it so if you're going to charge people with a conspiracy to possess or possession you've got to show that they somehow could confirm at least constructive possession and that would be extremely difficult in a case of that nature understand but what i'm saying is that if if you if you take the logic of the cases where they're not there they don't have to be there to be recessed and again we could send them a letter say would you please come back and if they say no i don't think so