of way a transition between our process of receiving green cards and thinking that everyone had signed and receive them properly until  the judgment after sixty days no one had responded so that's why when we were under the impression that everything had been complied with further main attention that document number thirteen which is the point of motion to stay highlights the fact that we have received those green cards from the a t f federal  good morning your honour's david so you're i represent the plaintiff and there are a number of issues that can be raised with regard to the attempt to serve these federal defend the agent rather than the government's burden to establish that person is not the agent that's the burden is to show proof of service but i think once it's sunny and i think the government would have the obligation to present to th person was not huge and i don't see how mr martin could determine who the defendant's agents were for receiving service that was mailed to their proper address and signed by the will it take the deposition of whoever so i provide that information to the court and the issue that comes up with service issue is the fact that the court denied the motion for the follow up and then granted the motion to dismiss  full well that this was going to prevent mr merton from refiling this action because the statute of limitations had run the judge had obligations to at least allow mr nathan minutes mr martin to correct service whether service should be accepted as constructive service and that occurs when the attorney appears and ask for it other than service again i think the court had a better than what it needs at the statute of limitations was about or had run because he mr martin filed this the day before the statute of limitations would have occurred ok mr sawyer you save some time for may be filed before trouble or a case or evidence is it isn't an issue at trial it's a judicial decision made by the court to take judicial notice and the law is fairly clear that you cannot do that when it's just an i didn't read that to be what the district court i read the district court to act sooner so one testimony from another proceeding but not to have taken judicial creating that genuine issue of material correct the burden is on the defendant when they found their motion to present substantial evidence and they presented a sworn testimony from a different case as their only evidence not allowed because the court cannot accept that information i mean he's saying quote can't do that because serious i know they can't do that because the testimony has to be presented in their case by the declaration of the district court properly just missed all claims against turner ness that her and sufficient service of process services processes that are sectional requirement both the district court and the government put food on notice that he had not perfect the service will fail to remedy that the facts and service and therefore the district court properly dismissed all claims against the two agents specifically the government does not say where  inspection i believe referring to the attorney general the card to the attorney general however nowhere in the record does fuko actually ask for an evidentiary hearing or take any of the steps or any other steps or any but here well before the district court dismissed the claims the district court gave notice on several occasions that the government that there were inconsistency in service and pointed out the specific and the consistency that are on appeal and i ask because of that there's simply no reason to go to a suggestion of whether there's a good cause to it and to further extend the time to to  refile but to to attempt to research these individuals the plaintiff had every opportunity for whatever reason the plaintiff did not resort attorney general and did not properly star eight the two agents and for that reason the court did service of profit process on defendants turner and us with so did not identify individual or official and then it also stated that the interests of the united states may be implicated also if there was an  any issue about jurisdiction for the official capacity claims your honor no because in that initial motion document twenty five dollars the government did talk  through a and twelve yes your honor in document forty the government does focus on the individual capacity class and that is khorassan anywhere where the government says good service was motion for extension of time it would be the government's position that we did not however and looking at the case itself and document forty eight dollars judge kalonzo order with respect to this case  there are no actual official capacity claims while the defendant ameriquest your honor that is correct so if this court were to believe that somehow the government did waive the official capacity issue then then it would remain and to the district court for the a determination of any i just for the case we have i mean i look at this record miss home and we have to do that i mean in so far as the  service now you're going to find your honor i think that they think the cleanest way to think that is that the government did initially raise concerns about the service on turner and nesbit period that would include an individual and official capacity the district court and looking at all the documents went to and address both the issues of individual and official capacity however i do think that that you are correct there certainly are some not even argue that the district court's decision that they get attorney generals had not signed the card did not object to that in his opening brief and the attorney general's card is required for both individual and official  capacity so for these reasons the government does ask the certified transcripts just like a deposition or an affidavit or declaration this is sworn testimony that was given to a court transcript for certified and for that reason this is no different from a whine on otherwise koppen evidence that will fifty six expressly lays out multiple courts of appeals have helped us certify transcripts from other judicial proceedings are competent evidence that can support the motion for summary judgment and there's at least one published decision of this court which has said the same now this case is not cited in our briefs all provide citation but that's jordan the conway four for one federal noted judge boundary decision in which she disc line to take judicial notice of testimony that was a case that was of a motion to dismiss posture he's referring to that the how the city of enterprise case that in their opening brief the defendant there as well you know as the defender was moving to dismiss and ask the court to take judicial notice of testimony that had been provided a different perceiving because they were at the pleading stage about a crowded unlicensed nightclub known as pick out the record in the summer but it is that such complaints would normally trigger and spec ssion the sculler agreed to inspect when he arrived in september he walked that i can find that would put color on notice that november reinspection of an unlicensed nightclub with multiple fire code violations where the owner came from all sides precisely to open the door let him in accompany him on the going to move the needle because mr if you go hasn't made this argument but is it is it ordinarily you would say it for are they is yet another law enforcement organization seven meeting with the fire do by other law enforcement officers he simply noted that that's when the a t f agent allegedly said wall if you see the gun let us know and and then he proceeded to conduct the fire inspection that he was already planning to conduct presumably there's there's some sort of line where in the ministry of inspector could become an agent of law enforcement i'm not suggesting that's what happened in this case but in a different case what do you have to be a situation where the officer conducting the administrative search least would show that it didn't do anything different from how we would have ordinarily conducted the administrative search i think that's certainly a relevant factor judge pryor and we have that evidence here in the record that mr collier stated that he did not go outside of the scope of a normal fire inspector general fire inspection  to conduct any and it might be a different situation if the scenario that judge grants asking about was coupled with happens that the that the officer went beyond what an important neary administrative search would be