e extraordinary circumstances he diligently pursued a state court remedies he believed his rule twenty nine had been properly filed there was no the prosecution would suffer no prejudice because he's already paroled is really only looking  action to researches legal status for two years after the filing of his petition which i take it to be in his will thirty position occluded a finding of even reasonable diligence in his credible testimony holmes explained in detail three letter it basically corroborates everything that the time mr holmes said that the prosecutor suggested this and the prosecutor depended on the prosecutor and he depended on his attorney to get him back into court it was not something he could have done on his own is that he went to the law library got the blank he was given a blank form which are given to all prisoners it's just a form of the affidavit is just a form and he filed it and under the practices i was there argued before when i was before you before under the practice  standing before you and you asked well if you know what mr homestead was was adequate then wouldn't the filing of a rising revoke say that habeas process indefinitely and it would absolutely would but in this case the equitable tolan he had he just didn't know and he depended on if there's government interference it's the prosecutor who never came back to him never came back to the lawyer and he believed that that was going to happen and he believed it for two years and then as soon as he learned it couldn't possibly happen because it was a mandatory sentence he filed the will thirty motion and he stopped the south the hideous clock at that point those extraordinary circumstances are that he was almost alone when he was lowered into believing that this was going to happen and it just isn't and there's nothing twenty can use the library at any given time it was a twenty one hour a day lockdown his so between the at affirmative misleading by his lawyer and by the prosecutor and the limited access to the library there was really nothing that he could have  those were extraordinary circumstances outside of his control  nine was properly filed and i mean this court has said in the previous decision even assuming that holmes that availed himself of every opportunity to conduct research in the prison library it's by no clear no means clear that he could have ever discovered  is pursuing his remedies diligently and also where there is some extraordinary circumstance that prevents him from finding save his petition on time failed to carry his burden of proof for either of the problems of this house before turning to the specific prongs of the test though i want to talk about the factual basis that's being offered now that underlies the argument by petitioner problems and that's the existence of this secret plea deal by which the petitioner says he was going to be brought back into offer the sort of clear and convincing evidence that you would need to overturn the state courts factual finding want to comes to that because that factual underpinning is the basis of both of the session as arguments under both prongs that alone is fatal to to his hundred ninety eight is the rule twenty nine motion and just very briefly with regard to whether the rule twenty nine motion was filed correctly at the time the practice that's being discussed and it was discussed by this or the first time the case was here is what it is is what a motion withdraw the guilty plea two years after he pled guilty roughly twenty five times the amount of time before after which he was supposedly going to be brought to court and have his sentence reduced that motion does not mention this now the diligence process the petitioner simply could not have been found to be diligent because he did nothing for the two years to didn't call as is his counsel and say why haven't i brought you know been brought in yet didn't contact the court to sit say why haven't i misled about the sounds of it wasn't told anything legally when it came to the shore new circumstances that are presented here on appeal now are three and they're different than what was presented to to the district court is the affirmative misleading by the prosecutor which never happened the formative misleading by the  defense attorney which also never happened and then there's the live the library access issue so the first to the affirmative misleading suffer from the same factual problem that we discussed under two twenty two fifty four it's already been ruled on the state court is not clear and convincing evidence the contrary in addition the evidence that is actually documentary evidence that is here contradicts the petitioners argument the letters the petitioner hangs his hat on one lone sort of ambiguous of mention of the possibility of the the other two letters that we cite in our brief pages a one to six it and a two three six make it clear that the prosecutor was not the one that came in and did any misleading here the position himself was the one that said hey if i plead mentioned by the district attorney and when the case and again report it was reported mention reported to you the possibility mentioned by the district attorney i would suggest that this is the most crucial letter of defense counsel's the ca's the issue read the