over the country is probably heard every conceivable reason and excuse and you should be told i won't hit those very briefly which may also entitle him to really by holding it under of bands to that area due time in any event i think that it's impossible really to address a situation  what kind of mood evidence has to be presented in things of this nature and i think it's perfectly legitimate to look at actually what the constitutional violations are and say this man was wrongfully any sexual assault charges they arrested him after a few hours and his car and pounded and the prostitute was giving his story that there were multiple sexual encounters even perform to do shonar there would be all sorts of visible evidence there and they impounded nothing of that nature from that car they took no clothing from the prostitute even though she talked about knives and god and all can't have in this trial they didn't get the evidence in the first place early evidence is gone it's not a question of bringing it back and met in the last evidence there's been subsequently found so many white and i can't imagine anybody thinking that this scenario is not fair and i won't go into it any further except to say that he was wrongfully any pretrial motions didn't bother attacking the question of no evidence being preserved and tell the time of trial but this was a very skillfully prosecuted case the prosecutor did an excellent job they grabbed up another prostitute to the judge allowed to testify about a similar incident he excused this man i never did have a prior felony conviction but there was absolutely no evidence of this nature the jack the ripper thing was never raised in any again i don't purport to be a great expert in federal post conviction per se doings and beginning to wonder whether even trying is worth the effort but i do know meeting in dead things is the reason that mr dear is there today he had his first date petitioning counsel an attorney i know a coming out i found out about the order and immediately filed an affidavit that i had never received notice of that and i assumed at that time same as all of my other mailings went to this exceeded your house so that could be an issue but we didn't go back into court now the federal courthouse was closed on the twenty four week ago i looked at your procedure on the notice of appeal issue and i may be the cause for the special order because i didn't pick up on the problem of that now this appeal and perhaps i'm the one who should have i didn't look at the overlap between rule sixteen and appellate rules for counsel filed his rule for federal help a seizure rule for a motion to expand in july and judge hicks granted sense of the wrong address apparently the clerk in las vegas with sending everything to counsel to the wrong address so he says he gets it he gets it on the twenty third said he got it on the twenty third and what is your position  courthouse this close on the twenty fourth or not i don't have an opinion on that because i don't i do not have a memory that they were closed on the twenty fourth i can't i can't respond to counsel's argument that they weren't because that excuse not of record they received it on the twenty third i don't know why he wouldn't have filed his notice on the twenty third or on the twenty fourth but either way i think filing it on the twenty sixth makes it light he had a remedy however what he attempted to do was he attempted to toll that time period he claimed in his opening brief by prodding a combined rule fifty two fifty nine and sixty motion to motions for reconsideration motions for new findings of fact challenging judgment the difficulty is none of those documents could have told that time period because those documents all have to be filed the their under their own terms or under rule for within ten days of the underlying order t told until he had actual notice of the original judgment and we know that he had notice of that original judgment in july of two thousand and two because that's when he filed the rules for a motion he didn't file the fifty two thirty nine sixty understanding but i guess the sense of then it comes down to one simple factual question is the court house on the twenty fourth it's not a federal holiday but on the other hand i did and orders i'm assuming that rule for would have applied i'm assuming that he could have supplied a could have filed a second rule for motion i would not have objected to that and that would have extended him out but the difficulty as counsel ha talks generically about orders when counsel could have done counsel had an option the first time to extend time and he took advantage of that because he didn't receive the order ha received that second order i would presume that that same remedy would have been available and he not received the order now we know we did receive the order he didn't get the full fourteen days he only got two days to deal with that issue but the that he had that same remedy that he could have applied the second time and he did not do that what he attempted to do was as a remedy to extend toll that does not work under those three rules if the court very briefly would like me to address the reason we're here and that the timing is a shoe separate from the issue on jurisdiction i point out that about two thirds of the opening brief does not deal with the issue of timeliness it deals with an issue that i did not raise in my motion to las vegas metropolitan police state a pretty mediocre job in their investigation under sloppy under the specific factors that the u s supreme court dealt with in this law case they said that kind of that you have to as well the prostitute claimed that she had parentage her dad was in the royal canadian mounted police and we found out ten or fifteen or twenty years later that that's not true why that could not have simply attack the credibility of the state's witnesses you have to show actual evidence that you could not have come up with before that goes to your actual innocence and there's not even anything in the petition that goes to actual none of the factors that might put off the initiation of the time period of ply there was no state impediment there was no newly discovered evidence and there was no retroactively applied us supreme court decision and they found out fifteen years later that the prostitute may or may not have her father may or may not have been a royal canadian mounted police officer why that would even be relevant in this case  beyond responded if it doesn't go to actual innocence the bottom line here is in addition to the jurisdictional problem that this court has this petition was late then i do my own running i was over at the federal courthouse and it was closed it's my understanding your was open for a while in the morning and then they took the afternoon off i don't know how