that mr dicus was convicted of a number of charges that were not part of the original detainer and were not part of the same transaction as it riginal the trainer so happens those charges two in particular the most important charges in this case the two sexual assault charges with counts one and two for which he got life with consecutive the statute makes clear in the words in the statute that the receiving state only has jurisdiction to decide the same the detain or charges and that the same transaction charges and the word jurisdiction is in five j there is no other jurisdiction is retained by the sending state otherwise the i ask you a merits obviously ruled against my client and found that it was not fundamentally unfair the application of the law here i know the reference you know there are certainly not saying you should ignore it  doesn't make it i realize you can't rewrite state law but it makes no sense at all that that when an issue is raised on appeal mere fact that it's not particularly argued very artfully that that would somehow eliminate the issue that just words were series of transactions or series of acts as it is in rule eight of the federal criminal rules the word transaction is used in that rule when it says act or transaction and then it's a series of acts or transaction i think if the assault i would think that that means they have to be separate and then they're separate transactions the the relief or requesting on this particular issue is just dismissal of the additional charges obviously the two most important ones are on top of the list the other additional charges are different people and we certainly say that different people are different transactions there are different don't you look to the specific facts of the specific allegation as to the civic crime as opposed to to some sort of broader scenario and i don't i don't think that that the interstate interstate detainer act is designed to obviously designed to help or at least attempt to help get charges resolved that would linger for years and years and years and the purpose of the act of course is to is to i think get get lead against to try to get their charges back to resolve your charges you're going to clobber basically unless you unless you happen to do something that makes a prosecutor feel good about it in this case mr vikas to the reverse he started to plead guilty and backed off it's not good obviously that's not a good thing to do but that happens here he got clobbered because of that and i are going to be that this is a disincentive great disincentive for anyone to want to come back and resolve charges when this kind of thing happens and it's wrong it violates the detainer act and it should now and that on appeal i might add there was nothing they could do to add to the record there and then that really cut things off because in divided of when you when you've already brought here your issue on direct appeal you normally get a lot of the case raised on on post conviction and i want to correct something i think i strenuously indicated that you couldn't raise the affidavit in post conviction in state court and so on evidence or hearing and prepare for argument i think maybe i was stated that i've never seen an af presented with a state petition and i've filed some myself and i've also read a few i think maybe you could do that but the real point here is that evan if you're hearing is the right time to do it and also he couldn't do anything anyway because he was locked out by the direct appeal record he couldn't go fundamental defect that we're looking at that is also my understanding of the position of the ninth circuit court and that the ninth circuit court will look as to whether or not a fundamental like in an article for c violation to a speedy trial right and say if there's a violation of article four see that there is relief in hagar's corpus and on the other side of the spectrum you have the article forty anti shuttling types of relied on authority from the third circuit and the third circuit i believe i briefed it discusses directly on point the question of article five d violations and whether or not they're fundamental or not i think their that there isn't a specific dismissal remedy in those types of cases but in five years there isn't a specific dismissal remedy also you know the the third circuit cannot find that the article five d deals with dicus was that in not having all of the counts listed on this information maybe he would not have waived and come out to nevada it's not really much for prejudice if he believe the appellant concedes this and is trying to frame the issue as a violation of five results in a lack of jurisdiction for the receiving state i think they its purpose is not to convey jurisdiction to the sending state of the receiving states or whatever the states already have jurisdiction over the person what nevada did have in this particular case has custody of mr dicus and so the idea is to coordinate the custody of these various jurisdictions who have subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction i mean the allegations in the complaint are that mr dicus was in nevada at the time that he did these things so that the personal established federal law either and another point that i would raise on that is it that argument is too broad for for us to say that a violation of non to proffer one opportunity on collateral review do the petition have an opportunity to put that affidavit before the court again evidence you're the first opportunity as long collateral pill they could actually articulated this as a claim if you the record for thirty three they only raised to cling on the first claim was adequate notice of a grand jury proceeding claim and the second claim was the id violation and then they requested an evidentiary hearing to discuss these two claims well they can come to the court now and complain about the inability to put have put on evidence and have a definite evidence you're hearing about their inability to put christie judgment on the stand when they never asserted that as a claim on collateral people and didn't ask for an evidentiary hearing regarding that issue on collateral people in the state court and so yes they had an opportunity they didn't raise they didn't raise the issue you know the last thing my time is running out the last thing i would basically is it took six years for them to put together this affidavit and so we're talking about their due diligence and discovering this claim you know waiting until you draft a federal petition to g and i think that's an exception to the fault that the nevada supreme court articulated that keep the the claim and then you're absolutely correct refused to go further jurisdiction is a fundamental starting point of every case in america it's not a trivial technical thing it is the fundamental start of a case and there was no right to have this trial and the courts have done something about it and this court should do something about it on the debt ratha day that whatever the petition may have said you have a right off with nothing no capability of doing anything further and by the way there's nothing wrong with what he did in federal court the state responded to it by saying it was exactly procedurally correct and they said it should be handled