understood your honor and you know what i can tell the court is just that it is not immediately obvious when you take on a case like this what the best strategic choice is you know no i don't believe that would have been the appropriate strategy in fact you know mr harrison kind of set all of this on a misleading course from my perspective with his letter where he said you know the next step we were going to take this all the way to the u s supreme court the appropriate approach in my perspective would have been to st go back to say well in washington we call it a personal restraint petition which is all of collateral attack once which is of course applicable to states versus the th and th member approaches what ella counsel chose but more importantly but to expand the record and bring in declarations from witnesses in the courtroom who observed is that i mean you know obviously it's hard not here to testify but what i can tell the corps is that a tremendous amount of effort was made initially to get the file from mr barry and then later to talk with the other attorneys in this oh without question you know and we all have that case right and so all i can say is again i have never seen any conduct like i said what i saw and if frankly it was somewhat unbelievable initially and it was your a couple of years of representing mr barry for i was actually did meet him outside of prison and so i'm i'm going off the word of his family and over spotty phone calls from the prison as i try to recreate what happened here the approach that we took was taken and whether you know it whether attorneys made a number of mistakes which i think undoubtedly we have and whether that should fall on mr very really typically not something that you it's not like statutory polarized not like a calendar a place on a counter you can mark off a says this is the commencement date and this is the date that it needs to be filed and you know the supreme court was i talking about is after a calling the named after his record right and i guess the feeling was that we needed to exhaust the statement state remedies and go  equitable tolling is required here given given the circumstances given did the fact that the district court did you know cite to and that was actually a case that  waiting to see what the supreme court would do in terms of mr harrison's discipline so it was the argument was the supreme court has firm that this lawyer is to be i think you resigned in lieu of disbarment and so now we've got a clear record of a person who not only abandoned mr berry but also abandoned not least nine of her clients and so based on that principles of justice there's a number of you know to prevent a substantial injustice these are these are terms that are found in different cases to provide relief and so that was the approach admittedly to some degree we were asking for for somebody in a judge because no extraordinary circumstance threw it in the way of the filing of the petition during that period of time where he had hired a new attorney in september of two thousand and sixteen and they waited  grant equitable polling from the time he hired mr new counsel in september two thousand and sixteen to the time he found the motion to recall the mandate in june of two thousand and seventeen which is essentially what the district court was doing was giving him that time period and in smith vs davis the court said that the standard is not whether or not he could go to state court to exhaust plays but there had to be an extraordinary circumstance still that when they talk about equitable polling and they talk about the standard for that in holland versus and i'm blanking on the hall and it's verses but in the holidays the supreme court said there has to be an extraordinary circumstance that prevented you from filing a federal the dition on time and then this court has from the st as davis said that creates a conversation required for the extraordinary circumstances it's not enough that it existed at one point in time it has to be what here because st if you go from september two thousand and sixteen when when mr barry hired his new attorney there was a delay of nine months before he filed anything then he motioned recall the mandate you hired the new attorney in september two thousand and sixteen still more than a year expired even including the time that he was in state court with the v r v and with a motion to recall the mandate still more than a year expired if you count all the time together because nine months before the motion to recall the mandate four months after the court denied then the and then three months a little bit more than three months from the time the state court denied the p r counsel's strategic decisions to follow as they court rather than a federal court can be a basis for a while and it cannot be under this court and the supreme court's decision he is acting as an agent of  of counsel claim is an alternative decision that the state supreme court reached in dismissing the p r p and denying review on the purity and the stage frame court said that they hadn't shown prejudice required to show ineffect strategy the immediate visibility of the appropriate strategy in a case like this where you're having to recreate the entire case quickly and there really is no time frame that set right i mean it's all it's all post conviction nothing's going to be properly filed under the guidelines for timeliness it's all improperly although that was the only aspect which was improper was just the fact that the statute passed and so now it's we're going to take the take these attempts and preserve federal often while exhausted state remedies that that exists it's not it's kind of almost not prefer the preferred approach is to go through the state system and so that merit the the issue of the th amendment the fact that his cold demeanor probably played a role in the jury's decision and so this court does have enough to do at least let us try to address that and so i would ask the court thank you