court and that's all we talked we talked about primarily the fact that there had been a clarification of state law by the state courts in two thousand and fifty and that  pleading we filed a motion to amend or rule sixty court never reached that question because this court had already certified peel so the district court not to say that we had raised the motion but only to say that their defense to our motion was that six that that north carolina law had always been consistent with tall and other words hall change a new claim and we believe that it's not a new claim but if the court disagreed with that and found that this was a new claim under hall then we believe that we believe that hall versus florida is retroactive so if there are no further questions or in an inquest and so on that i'm happy to take any but if not i'll sit down ok what is your explain  procedural in some aspects but also the substance and that it if you fit under the criteria of halls and you had an i q of seventy to seventy five then you were not going to haven't you haven't you can say to you raise the claim you're saying now you you haven't read i do we want to be very clear that we're letting this in the alternative you know we're saying first of all that it's be subject to capital punishment without consideration of adaptive functioning it has identified new people so to speak who the state cannot execute  i'm just confused so maybe you can help me with this i thought under adkins the supreme court left it to the states and hall saying wait a minute no matter what you do is a state there are certain people you have to consider prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status in offense so thus if we held as a substantive matter that the eighth amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded person such a rule would fall under the first exception to the general rule of non veteran activity why don't we have that i mean why isn't that a necessary conclusion with regard to this case the supreme court hall has placed a category of defendants beyond the power of the state to execute without consideration of the adaptive functioning i think that if you want to believe the classification of if that was not the case then i think hall and and more which applaud hall would not have been would have been tew versus hill one of reverse for alliance whole more because they applied hall six i believe the classification of persons is the same there are some additional factors but it's not retroactive that we apply a strict cut off i mean we don't apply a strict cutoff we didn't know that until two thousand and fifteen and when we didn't know what we two weeks well when we didn't hearing that that that's an answer but it's not an answer to my question question was do you on this record thinking you are entitled to an evidentiary hearing now in the district court we do  and what's the basis for that but we need the criteria of town sometimes to say and we believe that under two to five four he that we were diligent and trying to pursue all the evidence that we had appealable and when we went back in two thousand and fifteen we supplemented some evidence but what other evidence is there there was evidence of affidavit from the state's only witness in two thousand and five there was one and affidavit from the state's only now the attorney general's concession here and before that the state had in fact not had in fact considered the standard bearer measure had not applied a strict race in this case it's also about immutable characteristics of offended in this case intellectual ability so you have similar critical issues some importance and this is an equitable