please the court good morning your honor is my name is chad bowers i represent mr woods pursuant to the criminal justice act i would like to focus my comments are at least the bulk of them regarding the issue of  judge george as the district court judges consideration of the just impractical standard this case was initially before this court believe was in two thousand and four with the his discretion in determining that it was correct and i want to make one note and thank you for turning that process up but it was sent back by woods one with a reference to following the practices are following the standards as a lucid a did in iraq which was an earlier decision in this circuit on this issue unfortunately there are five cases including was one of the stand here today to touch upon this issue across the country there's there's three within this circuit woods one ross harrington and there's two and some other circuits both ross and harrington simply state it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to go ahead and allow those motions to be heard even though they were on client yes i mean the government said thirty two we're getting into a matter of counting days but thirty one thirty two months from december first one nine hundred ninety eight to july ninth two thousand and one correct yes that is the time frame and the each of these cases like i say ross and harrington just say well the district court can do what they want ross's untimely harrington's sort of very untimely because he's gets his verdict after the new rule comes into effect woods says go consider a judge the district court says well he had two and a half years after the new once went into effect and that put him on notice and then he has nine months from the date he got to do it discovered evidence that's just impractical and the problem that i have here is there are none of these cases nor is there particularly good language in anything else that i found that applies to what is just impractical i cannot envision a reason that it's not practical to have this just to go ahead and not apply or to go ahead and apply the rule in bar that claim on the other hand if this claim that is brought may have some potential merit to it it seems only fair and just to allow at least a token review of what those claims are if not actually determining that it's just a practical i have a difficult time believing that the sole factor that goes into determining whether something is just impractical is simply counting once and saying well that's enough and that's what these courts have seen to do thirty five i guess part of the equation is what happened during well in this instance i don't think there's a dispute that mr woods had difficulty with a couple different attorneys and under represented by counsel and sent regularly letters to try to acquire these transcripts that he ultimately acquired in i believe was september of two thousand if you give me just a moment i'll make sure because i did put testified in his case one testified in his co defendants case which was afterwards from those transcripts he gathered what he believed to be inconsistency is in the testimony of the second agent that would have had an impact on the agent in his case and proceeded to go ahead  and do his best to write this motion now what we're what we're really talking about and this gets confusing because there's every party to this transaction wants to prompt which numbers in the timeline relate to them so there's two and a half years and nine months to an after year since the rule nine months since you have the transcript the government says there's thirty one months instead of thirty six but i don't want this court to forget that there's a two month period that we're talking about in the d now he lost seventeen months that he would have had if we'd gone into the old rule from the time of the mandate but this motions filed it's supposed to be filed in july of zero one it's filed in september of zero one ross references the fact that the rule should not only be applied in cases where a defendant is diligent or not diligent or negligent in acquiring the new evidence but in this particular instance i really don't think that's an issue in the what the court would be saying to refuse to apply this is essentially that mr wood's efforts from the nine month period that he got this were inappropriate and therefore it's fair or it's just impractical to not apply the rule that would give him the benefit he's seeking if there's no questions with the court's permission i'd two thousand then he had from the date of the mandate it was issued on the direct appeal which i believe sir you're on that panel with which refused to direct appeal from december twenty second until july ninth he did not files motion for new trial he had ample time to do that and as i tried to make clear in my brief this is not a defendant who was not or who was shy about filing things with either the district  the ninth circuit he was a very prolific writer therefore i would say that will support the fact that he had ample time to file a motion for a new trial he had the evidence starting in september yet he waited a whole year to actually file therefore it would not be unjust or impractical to apply the rule in fact the supreme court prefers that this rule be applied in fact they want it unless it is for us and generally what are have an impact and i would argue that those facts cut against the defendant that he had the evidence well before the time frame in which he had to file the motion for a new trial under the new rule and also the record shows th i believe my by my count during just the direct appeal he'd filed five or six pro se pleadings with the court trying to file supplemental briefings with to his direct appeal he filed multiple pro se pleadings throughout the course of the mo  had done so repeatedly and bottom lines for years i would argue that the court did not it uses its discretion in light of the fact when you look at ross when you look at harry and they don't specifically say that there was or that in fact i would argue that ross is is good for the government in light of the fact that the ruling and ross stated that that court could not find any authority to say that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to not find it just impractical or thank you thank you please the court if i could briefly respond we're back again to the issue of math and i just strikes me as is not with this system is based on when you come to concepts as broad as just impractical this this court just identified some things that cut in the defendant's favor in terms of specific considerations that should be made that were not made in this case and indeed have not been made in any of the cases from the records that of the published opinions and those are what is the situation what is this person trying to do are they doing their best are they not doing their best and in this instance mr wood's ability to file pro se motions i think stemmed from some of the problems he had with his prior counsel but there again there's no suggestion that he's been diligent negligent or otherwise untimely except for the fact what this all comes down to is he had nine months under the old rule from the time that he got his transcripts and he has seven months under the new rule now we're setting aside the fact that he had seventeen months under the old rule that he could have kept going or whatever else but he's late by two months and i again submit that without the specific standards that we're talking about that it is appropriate for either those accent those standards to be examined or for mr woods to have the application of the old rule and address this issue on the merits i don't want to sound like a law student or an undergrad but my training in the law has always been under the assumption that we have a system that is not that is designed it would ensure a fair conviction we give presumptions to the defendants in cases in this particular instance i don't see how it's impractical to hear this motion and i don't see how it's fair to deny the hearing of the motion now if this motion has no merit the judge george has ample discretion to indicate that in your number of ways in addressing the merits of this motion but to procedurally prohibit mr woods based on the fact that by himself without counsel although filing a motion two months later under the new rule he thought he filed it seventeen months early under the old rule that just  strike me as just impractical and i wish i didn't have to talk in terms of how it struck me and that we had better standards but we don't with this rule called we have his math and i think that that this court in the system is designed and generally does provide more concrete standards to evaluate those things and i would encourage if this is remanded to this court suggest some of the factors it's reference today to be considered and in connection with the standard just a practical thank you thank you