concede at the beginning that i'm not claiming that there was ineffective assistance under strickland but c j council has to be better than just not in effect and i don't think th shouldn't and he and everybody who looks it should not believe that the result was changed by assigned counsel not performing and in this case this is no conceivable strategic reason for not raising no response at all but even once all of that happened that it became not in effect to despite one failure i mean this is clearly a failure he clearly dropped the ball there's no strategic reason for not  the courage the council totally fails to ration to district court martial and i certainly won't argue against ineffective assistance but but even if you don't find ineffective assistance i think that the failure of c j cancel under this court's precedent would be enough to send it back for another go let me as right at the mr fisher was pro se and said things that i guess certainly could infer that he wasn't pleased with his counsel because he said that his counsel told me he was going to get as i think you could say that i you know as i said the mr fisher certainly said that his lawyer told him that the sentences would be consecutive now that may he may or may not have actually said that or it but he certainly at least gave the clear impression that was on the table and then he failed to put it on the table so so in that sense he certainly dropped the ball to just  it's it's much too important thing to just ignore it and then leave it to the discretion of the bureau of prisons and and if i can just briefly address that i would say that they abused their discretion because their stated reason was that didn't meet the goals of the criminal justice system and i don't know if it was ever the goal of the criminal justice system to maximize incarceration because if it ever was that was years ago you know it did but still clearly the question of peace it turns he was on the table the guidelines range for the federal sentencing me but the guidelines range for the federal sentence was significantly lower than the mandatory minimum so by applying the this case the bureau of prisons said it was inconsistent with the goals of the criminal justice system to do that you currency and the goals should not be at least anymore to maximize incarceration well the judge should have to say on the record i'm not interested in intervening it shouldn't be so it should not be left ultimately to an administrator in the bureau of prisons to do that  regulations they should consult the judge it's their discretion so well disposed to do right and i think the rules right or wrong they're the ones to make even those rules don't contemplate the actual judge who is sitting at sentencing ignoring the requests those rules talk about if there's a new judge you ask their opinion and if they don't give you an opinion then you know even though we don't contemplate a judge not bothering to respond and  request however there are a number of factors that indicate that she did not feel strongly that there should have been a concurrent sentence she had it she did in fact indicate that she had read the minutes of the plea of the team to the hearing in which sorry the doc ye well i'm also it's news to me about the twenty two fifty five but i'm also concerned that it be in effect