and the government in their response addresses the question by saying that it simply impeachment evidence and that humility you and i would submit to the court that what has been disclosed post trial by the office of the inspector general investigation is misconduct by the government agents and such as that if that were revealed and we were allowed to present that as a part of our entrapment defen five the trial judge ordered that all brady information be turned over as soon as possible but no later in july twenty ninth one nine hundred ninety five the brady letter that the government characterized revealing all the benefit because the government in the letter and i apologize for not having it on my fingertips but they set forth what they disclosed in the in vitro new york testimony at the evidence the hearing has all the benefits and he did not say the letter said that they were with holding deportation for mr bland and that he had been a person involved in drug trafficking for some period of time and that he was receiving money for the from the government for his cooperation and what do you think should have been in the law i think the government should have disclosed that the immigration land on a lawful permanent resident status and a green card he that was characterized as being a valid green card at that time it was only later when the higher echelon united states to bring his family to the united states district your citizenship and all the benefits of citizenship to this person now later as a court note that was rescinded when the immigration and naturalization fo excited and happy to get back in the car came business and that he wanted to be a big player and in fact the amount of cocaine he was dealing in were the amount he wanted to be dealing and so if you find  before you move on i've got a more basic question given given the room and for reset and seeing which is what this court said how did you get in the district court on this argument by virtue of  rule thirty three knew it we discovered evidence your honor what's the deadline for a rule thirty three motion based on newly discovered evidence well i think it's byron member properly seven days after the conclusion of a trial or whatever period of time the court allows i think in this instance it was two years or i think it was two years or well if it's newly discovered evidence which is it seems to me that's what you have to say is that you didn't know what had gone on with this witness during the first trial so you have newly discovered evidence and the rule says three years after a verdict now is i looked at the record the verdict was march ninth piece ninety six and the the motion was of filed or that it was they tried to file it on august eleventh five hundred ninety nine more than three years later so as a rule thirty three motion isn't that out of time i don't believe it is your honor i believe that the district court found that it was within the time prescribe article thirty three mile ok but justified in other words i can add up to months on the calendar and to me you're well over three years i think it i think it does hold a very broad or well i don't have a case or not exactly what the rule says is that if if the case is on appeal if an appeal is pending the court the district court may not grant in motion f new trial until the appellate court remands the case so in the usual situation where something comes up hala cases on appeal there's a motion to the district court to tell us would you consider a motion and then we the case for the purpose of allowing the district court to consider the motion but until we do that the district court has no jurisdiction for three years as i read it continues to run so in order to stop the three years there has to be something that it runs and that's the end of it because i don't see many holes in rule thirty three i believe your honor that it may have been told during that period of time we were on  he'll i remember i know that i researched this question extensively in the district court and i john sorry but i just don't have the answer at my fingertips i looked at your briefing the only thing you mentioned in your gray brief about how you got to the district court one vase thirty seven much said that i was wrong well mr o'neill did not tell the ninth circuit that there was an office of internal affairs investigation and the results of that investigation i'm sure there's lots of things she didn't say i respectfully disagree that for all three or the evidence is a statement is that it would take too long to present it wouldn't take too long to present it would be a very relatively short then in fact the government would probably be dipping late to it if we'd known the time today would you want all the fact that they giving him an illegal green card is not like the forty thousand dollars i mean i'm sure there are many people believe to pay forty thousand dollars on a better for a green card computer would look and act just like a real green card that's pretty unusual and that is a valuable thing and you think this is something that would not have been admitted just along the forty therefore he's thoroughly discredited and doesn't really matter but i think what he's trying to do this morning is to say that look what evidence wasn't so overwhelming and you can see that from the newly discovered evidence and that is that this is you very much rooted in the original greek paul by the government in the first to feel at page eighty and eighty one the government states russia's main complaint was that the government although it turned over virtually its entire file and has provided every scrap of benefits land on received or any other case to decline to turn over the file of the original investigation into