this case there is really just a single issue before the court and that is whether mr diggs should be entitled to equitable tolling for his st federal a v s petition consistent with this court's precedent in similar cases i believe that the general facts in the timelines in this case are undisputed and that is that mr diggs his conviction was in state court was finalized on march  thousand and fourteen meaning that you completed the direct appeal process at that point and then you filed for state post conviction relief on feb th two thousand and fifteen which would be a period of three hundred and thirty four dollars days elapsed out of the in the primary argument we make on behalf of mr diggs is starting with the supreme court's admonition hollins that courts of equity can and do draw on decisions made in other similar cases for you think is best for your client which is closest to these facts that allowed tolling well i would say to your honor in terms of the numbers you mon of the day this is probably the most recent case year on a case called jackson v davis and the language that he used in that case i think is very important where he kind of talked about this idea of matching you know when you're considering how to weigh these cases submitting the st petition and then in the timeline of acting after receiving notice of the finals inaudible so based on that matching language we really saw two cases that had similar kept inquiring with the state court he was showing diligence by saying what's going on you know i have received a ruling which i think is a fact that we've considered is there anything like that in this case there's nothing like that your honor but i do believe there's an important point of distinction to make there and when we reviewed a lot of these cases out of texas it seem that there was almost a systemic problem in the state of texas uniquely with alt delayed notifications where years would go bought and all the petitioners in texas i think in a sense run notice that this was a systemic problem and so you saw in those cases a pattern  practice of merging where the incision was understood that it was incumbent to inquire with his taxes or because notifications just weren't coming in that happened in numerous cases there was no system a problem is far as we're aware in louisiana with any sort of you know pattern of late notices coming out in fact the clerk's office suggests that this was a one time isolated extraordinary kind of issue where they didn't mail anything but there been no previous history of that happening there's no post history of that happening so you know in this unique window i can't say that the petition was in the museum would have kind of had that notice or that historical problem that  on anything else counsel iowa saying that right yes sir you you did are i don't dispute the fact that he lay out of council regarding everything on just thinking fails for two reasons i think   but then the burden shifts to him and it is particular case mr dix hasn't done anything to establish that is raised the same arguments that he's raised in this particular case when we tr have three eyewitnesses why down fired him is the shooter who shot a man in broad daylight right in front of the window or were shot the bar himself was looking right out that window he was the only individual in me parrish i drove a purple car that purple car was at the scene that was the car he got out of right before the shooting and he also fled from the state they tipped marshals recovered imaging so i don't think he did anything along that line segment i think he slept on his rights as a court pointed out he was not diligent in acting within that when you period he waited till the end so that there would not have delayed is falling whatsoever so i believe he's left on his rights i agree with what the court ruled and i think even if he does get there where will tolling we're going to end up with the end result that there's nothing new to overturn the conviction we have three our witnesses on the tolling question is all these cases out there they're all highly fact that around but opposing counsel mention this phillips case i don't know if you've read after getting the state ruling to file federal which is a few days more than in this case the back end weight and there we said he wasn't title to tolling some didn't do any distinction or that  this i don't want to offend anybody but it's one of the rare cases that happened in that section where we had witnesses who actually were willing to testify a lot of times we have individuals who say it for fear for their lives they're afraid to testify in cases we have sixteen year old shooting sixteen year olds right now and although there are plenty of people out there seeing what happen we have new witnesses for fear of retaliation by th cases that are close calls that have issues that should be looked at more closely so if this court rules that there will be tolling implies i'm ok i've got some more work ahead of me again in the future looks like but i think the it's your honor i have nothing further to add we just stand on my original remarks arlen and you took this case through the courts pro bono program so thank you for volunteering and for your able representation of days in this case will be submitted counselor excused and we're done for the day