mr masher willfully violated the conditions of his probation by failing to report to serve additional intermittent confinement the sentence was a sentence of intermittent confinement three months of weekends sense of probation with intermittent confinement intermittent confine broomfield imposed a sentence on your client and apparently judge broomfield intended that your client server either ninety or one hundred twenty days respectively for the two and he thought that's what he wrote into the a motion that we filed to correct the sentence so we came back in the judge then changed the sentence to three months intermittent confinement it was obviously uncertainty as to exactly what the judge meant by that and that's a ninety day that's m question so so you dispute on the second sentencing that your client heard ninety days but didn't understand that it meant cumulative a total of ninety days right the judge did not say ninety days he essence an objection based upon the round trips between their homes and the jail that they were serving their time in which can only be totaled if you assume that they had to do a total of  that the question is two types of knowledge here obviously the senate measure was present at the time of sentencing and could be have constructive knowledge of what the sentence imposed what the judge broomfield seem to to believe that what he had was actual knowledge that a sentence of ninety days was imposed given the fact that there was confusion over exactly what the sentence was to be and given the fact that the bureau of prisons what does it really matter what other people mean when i decide to crack but i mean well it matters because it it's the defendant's state of knowledge it's not the judge's knowledge of what he or she may mean  modification and a modification was necessary in order for the bureau of prisons to read designate mr measure mr price for additional services and so this wasn't back in modification let me just get to to the issue of credit for time and judge broomfield opinion does basically conclude that that it was mere negligence where he finds fault with finds the defendant not meaning the doctrine is that the planet was at fault and he was at fault for not protesting his release and there is absolutely no report to serve the initial intermittent confinement as that sense has been modified in july and he was supposed to report on august ninth and that's the time credit that we're speaking between february third of two thousand and two and august ninth when ninth or rather august twenty sixth when the actual petition to revoke his probation was final the reason for that is because that august ninth order was in effect done without any notice or advice of counsel as well i guess ninth that your client  math i think the record is clear that at the time this question was occurring it was like making sausage nobody knew what the sentence was supposed to be  i'm writing a letter to the probation office sending its three months and four months or maybe saying that how do you explain the petition that your client filed with regards to the round trip mileage between his home  county jail where he wanted to do is time that is clearly based as i do the math and understanding that he had to serve a total of one hundred twenty days and the district court made a factual finding if i read the record correctly that your client must have understood that when he filed that petition and now what are we to do with judge broomfield factual finding in that regard simply concluded frankly it's wrong because at the time it was a developing understanding how is that clearly erroneous whether the fact that you disagree with it on november thirtieth few days after you have the bureau of prisons making its conclusion of balance of how long a sentence is going to be and then days before that november fifteenth motion you have a letter f reply sorts of record you can see the probation officers chronological entries where it's unclear even to her she's making multiple calls to the bureau of prisons to figure out what all this stuff means and wrong with what he did at least as to mr price upon his release he shortly thereafter met with his probation officer who then testified under oath that she told him congratulations you're done with your jail he then gets contacted without any of the procedural notice requirements to come back to jail and then he gets counsel  i heard you argue that at the time that the sentence was pronounced judge broomfield was orally consistent and directing that the defendant serve ninety one one hundred twenty days that are you referring to the first sentencing or the second twenty days the three months or the more months they did not request any clarification that issue was and what we can do it was whether or not they could be sentenced to any confinement at all based on their motion to correct  because it seems to me that the problem arises here where the bureau of prisons for whatever reason releases these defendants and now as i understand our case law we talk about a reasonable had a ten year sentence and then they get out after you know and then after thirty days they let you out i mean i think that would be actually distinct from a situation where you've been in there for a while you don't have a very good extents and they let you because i think most of us that have been in the system any period of time realize that i don't know people seem to get out early all the time anyway for yeah a hangnail this that or you know infer it's over absolutely i agree however so you know it was targeting mike ok well yeah i mean i've done i've done a fair amount of it now they say i'm out who knows what other problems they have in the jail that they might overcrowding here this and so i'm done and your honor that would be fine if that was where it ended however for these defendants did not end at that point they were advised so i just wanted to get out and then when they get out there that they're going to get some credit that they get some credit once they start getting the credit you know it's her a moment's argument us and that at the time maybe they thought well you know they were just being silent they figured well for whatever reason they're let me out i'm done you know i've being questioned by the probation officer we have the memo approved by the district court on march eleventh and sentiment we have would note in the record at twenty nine  thirty that the defendant had previously been made aware of the memo sent by the probation officer and he was advised that it was likely he would have to serve more time and then on five nineteen he w that this is just not accurate to say that the defendants did nothing on page twelve of the reply brief and that's only nash and went through with his probation officer continually trying to get advice and counsel you have to remember he wasn't represented by counsel because no counsel had been appointed the probation officer had the record demonstrates a probation officer's attempt with the concurrence of measures council to schedule no there wouldn't be any hearing and directed the probation office to to schedule surrender dates that's the date that i have put forth the august ninth state which is the surrender date the reason that this took a period of time is because they