brief in this case back in november of two thousand and nineteen last year there was very little force or the story on this issue at that time acknowledging that during the last eleven months there have been some cases that have come out that are not exactly favorable to mr the position in this case i would never never as i would like to take you through the procedural posture of this case which is a little bit different from the cases that have already been decided and also point out a couple of aspects of this case that i think the court should at least consider before making its decision mr mckenzie  the grass but i would also i would ask you to please address the motion to dismiss in the course of your argument say in addition to whatever substantive argument you have is  did hear him or september of two thousand and nineteen but then it was learned that mr buffet has to use medical conditions and it was very expensive to transport him for that he into allowing mr buffet to appeal a new the stay consideration of all the other claims whereas before he did not all the other climbs they changed that d and stayed consideration of all the questions and then the how does the police agreement and the waiver of either appeal or collateral attack not a plot to the argument it the only exception i saw was that ineffective assistance of counsel client and and all types of circumstances which we've held i think aren't are not the type of things that allow someone to avoid a waiver at what we're saying is  of counsel involving the lack of an appeal now that hearing didn't happen but if you if it had happened i suspect the judge anderson would have ruled this any way he did and when he did that that here applies if a senates for the offense has not been imposed as of the date of anatman and the government says a sentence has been impose thank he that would have come off had that hearing been killed i don't know if judge anderson would have entertained it i don't know if he would have listened to an argument or a motion but just reading the transcript of the case i suspect that maybe just from the statements he made in court and the wording of his orders of think he might have it least listen to that i think another thing that's different about this act he was he never got out of district court i understand the cases for circuit cases talking about where the st act doesn't doesn't apply to the case on appeal but they had never even gotten that effective he could have raised it there and as far as not getting a hearing on it i think the hearing in scope was to be confined to whether there was an effect of such as counsel andersen did was give mr butts a common and logical remedy for failure to appeal which this court and had in other cases has said does not entitle someone to a new recent thing and constitutes a correction of a sentence rather than a re sentencing so mr hall if if if you could spend a little more time on this issue in terms of whether the sounds like there's no issue about the waiver is affective the issue is whether it's the senate's you know is in violation of the law is the legal in effect and that it seems law is the argument is well at the time of the nd sentence it that it was that these two since him as he did was to senate's him in a way that was contrary to the law so how help us with that is she is it is it cut it do we not look at the nd sentence and if so why and i think context is important here because there are cases out there i'm sure your honour's are familiar with and the talk about whether this act applies after a sentence is in vacated for a quote  and to the extent the panel finds those those opinions informative this is a different type of vacated this is one not done because of a defect in the senate or the conviction which is the whole premise of really wiping the slate clean for and for a plenary resend it saying this is something done mechanically in order to restart the clock on the direct appeal time i mean to to get there you're kind of kind of looking at the merits in order to decide whether the waiver applies in the st place and that's and that was what i meant by that apologize for being unclear but  it sounds like what you're saying and it is understand it is the reason we don't look at your argument as that because of the nature of this vague way the judge anderson vacated  and that's not consistent with the law  i don't believe remaining at this point would would necessarily result unless the court were inclined to have that sort of mandate would would lead directly to a plenary re senate saying because they're against this is not a case where not appropriate for the court to be informed get the range is twenty five to life with not mandatory li and you think it doesn't matter of fact it was vacated has nothing to do so our position is that even if you are wanted if you agree with their analysis there and we agree with this fence analysis in that case but even if you agree with the majority analysis there we have a different type of a caterer here than the one that they were relying on and nd even they didn't go so far as the say that a vacate or that took place months after the st step act became effective here because it's just  i'm sorry all i was saying is that you're speculating about some no your honor all i'm saying is that d he was given no reason to think that mr buffet wanted any other type of relief for is he's going to be sentenced by the guidelines most likely which would mean a senate subs twelve to fifteen years just to show the significance of what's going on here and that's all i really have to ad