all right it does that sound sufficient spying all right thank you very much as i said and as you are aware mr greer was convicted in the district court of arizona he appealed his conviction to the ninth circuit the appeal was  later on he decided that he wanted to file a petition actually a motion to vacate that aside or correct dissent and and he did so on september thirteenth two thousand and one and no where the date this petition was later denied and dismissed for the reason that it was untimely filed in the opinion of the district court because the one year statute of limitations ha expired and therefore it was not in fact timely filed there are three things that i would like the court to an attention to and those matters do appear  the transcript of the procedure read somewhat differently in it too appears on page six it's the judgment of this court that you be sent to the bureau of prisons for a term of eight months and upon release that you serve an additional term of colorado for an additional eight months it will be up to the probation officer to determine whether you should do that with or without electronic monitoring than someone surprisingly at a later date  now it's true that he still looking at eight months of home arrest and eight months in terms of serving time in the bureau of prisons but the means eight months colorist was made a part of the condition of original judgment that was entered is a judgment that indicates that we're not asking you about that we're asking about the oral pronouncement of judgment that's what i'm trying to speak to your honor it's my belief that the the original release that you serve an additional term of all arrest for an additional eight months and then it says that the probation officer should determine whether or not electronic monitoring was appropriate in that from which you would assume that the eight months  he was not placed on probation i mean as a condition of release as a condition of really because otherwise no judge said you would have to add to me so on to the term after you after that home arrest is finished r issue here is whether or not this is of course whether the issue is whether this is a clerical mistake that was me and the judge is simply coming in on his own and trying to correct the clerical mistake versus was there something substantive about what the yes he's he's he's challenging the conviction because basically ineffective assistance claims against his against his attorney for reasons that have nothing to do he's not he's not unhappy with the sentence that he received from the court he's not trying to argue i should have gotten eight hearing months there that's not what he's trying to challenge the only significance of whether or not this amended judgment is substantive versus clerical in nature is in terms of does it in fact create here a statute of limitations because if it does the amended judgment simply corrected the language of the written judgment to match the oral pronouncement of the sentence and the government would also instead meant that the fact that there was no absolutely and also i believe the district court was trying to see that in his or accounts that when he said that the probation officer would determine if it would be monitored by let's john it monitoring or not and it w ambiguity involved in this then the transcript of the proceeding is not necessarily control over the written judgment that was that it was entered in the case and as a result because there is an ambiguity it's our position that there was a substantive change in what occurred and as a result of that his judgment was not final the judgment was not final in this case until the amended judgment was entered in it so this petition was timely filed one other brief thing equitable tolling equitable tolling might have been an issue that we would have preferred to argue in this case but in light of the issue that was certified by the court we're feel ability in this case which is whether the petition filed within a year of the filing in the amended judgment was timely filed it was our belief and the reason equitable tolling wasn't discussed in the opening brief is because the court wasn't thirty find that particular issue four and if he way it is that the court was not interested in hearing from that because of course what this seems to be saying is the key issue is here is what's the effect of the amended judgment because otherwise the issue that should have been certified would have been was it timely