category of when we looked at the rule and this is actually an exchange in my office this was not something that was done this was actually an assessor came into my office and  without following the rules because you did not file a motion for leave out of time that he basically forgave that engage you in f in fact a due out for by letting you file the motion and when that motion was filed in what the district court found was not compliance with the rule that the district court thought you were reckless you hadn't followed wonder you were forgiven you didn't follow another rule why isn't that the way we should look at reconsideration so why did you get that why isn't it a reckless performance since your duty says an officer of the court not to follow the rules i just want to know what you w has very had on the district court very explicit rules i remember them bigger because i was there you probably doesn't remember me this is not a situation where there was reckless since perhaps there was you know think that most mistreating the root is a mistake but it's not a mistake that is recklessness that is wetness and this falls into the category of something that is way short of a sanction i ask you a question about the standard that applies here i mean this question about whether the district court was required to have made a finding of bad faith before entering sanctions as a function of its inherent authority right and i understand the case law that that's your position right is there not also a provision explicitly in the local rules of the northern district and i'm looking at the it's one  that says failure of an attorney to comply with any of the rules shall be ground for imposition of sanctions is if you were a view that when the sanctions  were if they were based on that rule one point one we're also here acquirement of a finding of bad faith in other words to the problem geisha of the local rules also constitute an view that the district court would have been required to make a finding a bad fa answer is no such bad faith if there's reckless failure to perform your responsibilities as an officer of the court isn't that right what we base is that it has to be bad faith in the conduct of the litigation or negligence or recklessly failing to perform your responsibility says an officer of the court it's not right if you don't need it except you do  need you must have specific notice under saucer you must have notice of the standard to be used but the imposition of sanctions you must be borne by the regarding the authority for the imposition of sanctions and you're right i just wanted to ok thank you again i leave the court saying that you know nobody's perfect and i'm not perfect as i'm not here to say i'm perfect i'm just here to say that number one the sanctions were the conduct here or to cuba given the case law dealing with sanctions out there what kinds of things people do they will deserve one of the cases in just couldn't score you know this is way short of that but beyond that the the requirements set forth by the don't click on them you but i just couldn't arrow in trying to switch a microphone if you have another microphone to see if it gives you know the microphone to choose which would be a computer microphone i think i just heard you ok can you hear me at this time yes i apologize to the court some day i will learn to use