honors since this case was filed there have been significant rulings by both the united states supreme court in pace and in versus java's and also in the ninth circuit with bonner versus kerry and gaston versus palmer should we look at robin your honor is correct in that when the california supreme court denied the petitioners case that the california supreme court level they stated quote denied she and ray robinson and i believe with the  decision in both the kerry versus staffel and evans versus chavez i believe the federal courts including the ninth circuit can't hold can't rely on anything based on that ruling i believe that unless and while in robin's is a case regarding time when this the supreme court essentially said that the ninth circuit in the federal courts couldn't simply rely on that kind of ruling that they must make an independent determination well i mean if i mean i don't mean i don't know if one of the supreme court cases said well if if a state court rules it untimely that's an end of the matter and so what we're trying to figure out is is that what happened and why else would they be reciting that page of robin's if they weren't saying that this was untimely your honor as i believe the assumption is probably correct to the one could probably assume in re robins you know not in robin to the time when this issue but i believe the supreme court has said very squarely federal courts you can't rely on that you must have an explicit statement the lower state court regarding time with us and if there is no explicit statement regarding time when this the ninth circuit or the lower court the district court must make a finding regarding time when if i remember correctly you can correct me if i'm wrong was whether it was an reasonable well the question does go to reasonable miss and is it reasonable and justified and still the california standard unlike many other states standards does not have a number of days to reasonable the standard just want to have a cold and when we say one it means it's untimely if we say true it means that it was not raised in a lower court and if we if it's three and then after they just say denying one line of cases by both the united states supreme court and both the ninth circuit your honor seemed to hurt my client and they clarified and you have almost time limits to six months time limit in one and  rule it does not necessarily mean that they decided that it was reasonably time isn't that what your best argument absolutely ok if you were to read rather than definitely you know in the procedural bar  gap statutory tolling context but even if you were to conclude that robbins did not stand for an unreasonable to life if you look at here was fourteen months and an reasonable because of the purpose of what they did between the superior court filing in the fifth dca file and my client was looking for evidence witnesses who could help this case he was looking for newly discovered evidence or at least evidence to contradict what was stated at trial squarely he was unable to find that evidence but i believe it's always prudent for hay vs lawyer and appeals were especially havey as lawyer to go out and find and leave stores for evidence that may be a clickable in the subsequent a v s violence and i believe the appropriate time to do that would be just before the filing to the superior court or just after the filing to the superior court as in this case you want i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for court i'm katherine chapman for the california warden first of all i would like to address the court's questions regarding the citation to and ray robinson in robbins is the significant california supreme court case in which the specific issue to be addressed was the court state in particular to address the question of timeliness of claims advanced in state a b s petitions page seven hundred seventy eight eighty they set out the specific analytical framework that the court uses in detail a seven hundred eighty eight is the specific page cited to the california supreme court order is it clear from the discussion a the standards and the california supreme court that believe they stay in our court ok we have seen the courts of appeal adopt this standard and obviously if it's the california supreme court standard they're because each court in california has a regional jurisdiction it's state being the titian so they're not reviewing the lower court they they aren't looking at that specific interval between filings they're looking at how long did it take this pri california supreme court if if a prisoner waited a long long time and then went to the superior court and then immediately appeals to the court of appeals  and then went to the supreme court two weeks after his denial and they court of appeal the supreme court might say well this is untimely even though he's here within two weeks of his denial by the court of appeal this is an original written it's findings statutory tolling is a matter of a federal statute and is defined by that statute and finally i would i would just like yes that would have to mean that it was done reasonably delayed because they didn't say that they just said lack of diligence correct and that kind that comes from another the formulation in harris where in the court said attention must be filed within a reasonable time of when petitioner or his counsel knew or with due diligence should have known of his claims and we see the court occasionally taking the lack of diligence to shorthand from that and putting it in from my experience in practice it's a matter of personal preference whichever judges are writing the order to tell supreme court and ye the court must go back and look at that year yet between the superior court denial and the filing in the court of appeal and under gaston versus palmer in under fifteen months and eighteen months expires much sooner march twenty sixth one nine hundred ninety nine more than a year before the federal petition was filed this court has any questions thank you very much thank you to your question your own i believe you were alluding to the federal rule of a appellate procedure twenty eight j when i was speaking of the chavez case counsel did do a twenty eight j federal rule twenty eight filing in including the shadows decision and i was just simply trying to clarify my position to be her argument and just in closing very briefly your honor chapa says that a six month delay is too long if it's unreasonable unjustified and i would just like to argue here that