all right thank you yonkers again we won't reiterate arguments already raised in the prior two cases but some factual differences do set this case aside from the two previously discussed the n c a a in this case also did not include a date for time it did include in compliance with the regulation the address of the immigration court at which the n c a a was to be filed as required by one thousand and three  s the district court and its order found that the address of the immigration court was incorrect but that finding is frankly puzzling giving that the n c a included the filing address for the immigration court the notice of hearing told  respondent where he was supposed to show up for his hearing which was at the detention center itself so i'm not sure it's hard to tell where the district court is going frankly with how that effects jurisdiction by regulatory only this  was compliant as far as the address goes the recording of this immigration is is not in the records here and as far as service of the notice of hearing goes according to figures service which is similar in that it indicates facts care of custodial officer similar to a prior case it was served one day before the hearing so which is going to bring up the timeliness argument again but but  here the government's argument is that regardless of what we think about the timeliness of this notice of hearing it doesn't strip the immigration court of law full of forty six year that case it may require indeed the immigration judge to  intersect with some with some procedural remedies such as a continuance which again highly unusual for that not if that didn't happen in this case and there's no evidence that it did not and again  no i i don't think everything is the same your honor there were there are cases where allianz are in him a gratian attention or not in immigration and you but have been served a notice to appear thirty days or more before their initial removal hearing and those cases if the hearing notices search five days before the removal hearing i think that notice is likely plain that instant has had the opportunity to consult with immigration counsel retain immigration counsel discuss his case  but on the other hand if an alien were arrested by immigration authorities on january th let's say received notice of his hearing an hour before his in his st removal hearing that  if he claimed that the waiver was involuntary he would have the right to raise that as a grounds to set aside the removal hearing in the immigration proceedings with an appeal right process and to show crunch that is correct your honor because again the error in in an invalid waiver of the ten day period would be procedural it would not strip the immigration  if we want to get into the weeds of it he really feel which i'm i right that would be one of his best grounds for getting around he wanted to because hell that you have to tell him that  gifty for the proposition that whatever that may do it does not strip jurisdiction away from the immigration courts and the rim of the here is a notice of hearing not full revers of the of the below administrate of proceedings and here the only evidence on the record shows again that that hearing notice was served finn is never contested physical service of that hearing notice he just merely has not he signed a request for vala for a sooner hearing and did not proceed to appeal to be i assume the courts thought as well if the less than ten day notice of both the notice to appear and those if  hold as appropriate given all the statutes and regulations that has not been addressed and it isn't in the record before the court i i believed it was and i thought we had submitted it in our supplement what a record but in the district court below the defend did submit a declaration and he specifically said that the notice to appear was not translated and specifically said the request for a proper hearing section was not translated so our argument before the district court was that because he did not know what that is waiver of that in day notice and by extension his waiver of appeal could not have been knowing intelligent voluntary i apologize i actually believe that was before this court but it was before the prior however with respect to the government's argument that the district court's conclusion about the addressed issue makes no sense ludicrous i don't think that's well founded if the court looks at the excerpts of record  jurisdiction lacking because there was some supposed address deficiency not because your client was prejudiced but because i'm address was missing at the district court lacked jurisdiction i mean that the immigration court certainly this court in for mean undermines the credibility surely that the address lacks jurisdiction but both karen give you her means still contemplate tuesday notice and timely notice and argument here is that that wasn't timely because both of them were served less than ten days prior to the earing the notice to appear reserves seven days prior to new notice of hearing was only serve four days prior to the hearing itself not councils and you used the phrase two step i wanted to throw something it may be neither of you are up on it but the supreme very recently had oral argument in a case called ms chavez yes your honor although it was still in the context of stopped t hey had a very extensive discussion of whether you could have two steps would you and then i'll ask the government is there any wisdom that we might get out of a ruling in is  it clear pereira itself has no impact on subject matter jurisdiction and therefore as which is essentially the government trying to remedy pereira the fact that also would have no impact on on subject matter jurisdiction pereira subs decision subsequent of bear i've made it clear that although it in ca must include date or time to trigger the stop time rule that they do not need it in order to vest in immigration court was subject murdered jurisdiction regardless of what pereira says about the stop time rule because there are two separate issues there those being two separate issues that separate would indicate that a correction to the prarie issue advanced by the government is charges were not applied to the jurisdictional issue at