might say well he got maybe fifty percent of what he was asking for but i think counsel had a right to see the ninety days it was counsel's judgment need the ninety days  observation assume that no prep are no significant preparation have been done to this to that point but what happened is when counsel had the week before trial that he had chosen and the judge stated that well if i don't try this case this week it's going to be three weeks before i'm up in the quote batting order and this court stated that the substantial interested to have his case adequately prepared should have to counsel and formality so now back to your question your up this is a case where considering everything that had gone on and considering the history of the case that prior counsel had been motions the discovery had actually increased since the july order setting trial in october and other contains had been granted along the way some one in december december thirtieth two thousand and nine  and i think that that's interesting that if if it is going to be the practice of the district court to appoint practitioners who are not familiar with criminal law should they not be  granted of counsel choosing provided that it's reasonable i think a night asking for a ninety day extension of the trial date was not unreasonable but let me phrase this another way  does it appear that a forty five day continuance is objective lay on reasonable is it you know it isn't what you're driving at here almost an ineffective assistance of counsel claim woman that was called as a records custodian for a veterinarian that treated mr marks dogs counsel and it's in the record it's in the appendix counsel learned that morning that not only was this woman a records custodian of the veterinarian she was also a veteran every technician who could testify to the nature of a particular wound on a dog that was brought in by mr mark and to testify that it was not from dog fighting however because counsel had not been prepared to to learn that a present that it couldn't come in and it's clear in the record so i look at it and i've run out of time but if i could finish this thought i look at what the third and what did in charles well didn't evaluate from an ineffective assistance of counsel aspect a collateral looking at unreasonable innocent prejudiced just said that the unpreparedness of coun first off is that you know if we let council run the docket or let council constantly complain of unpreparedness when are we ever going to cases tried i've seem to surmise that that's where your honor was going with that but considering under these circumstances that consideration of the docket is an improper fact for the court to look at well it is i think it is i think it is  of trying the case should not outweigh the defendant's interest in preparing for trial and i would point out that the record is devoid of any evidence of a countervailing interest  thousand pages relate directly to that and two points to make when a defense counsel gets fourteen thousand pages of documents it doesn't come with  to and what's not so it's incumbent upon counsel to cull through every one of those documents determine what's relevant when when a defense counsel gets fifteen hundred recorded conversations it typically doesn't come with notations as to which tapes are related to your client either speaking or he's referred to by coconspirators so while i appreciate the government saying that there was an open remiss if i didn't at least touch upon the dog fighting i do want the court to consider whether there was sufficient of the dog fighting whether it was actually related to the conspiracy if the court looks at the  coming up as to well is your drug money used to fund the gambling and glance in isaac was the one who was tempted to pin him down on that and he was saying that he spent his drug money in the  gambling statute versus an animal protection stats in the animal protect chapter of the code there is language in the statute that if one willfully encourages a dog to bite so