record consider in its opinion an order dismissing mr file or her use our claim of retaliation the first one has to do with two different vacancy openings one again in process he was the supervising officer in charge of sec process with respect to die in the opinion in order the court makes the statement at page seventeen with respect to this issue the protected activity is the ongoing representation yes you're ok but that just but the finding below was not that it was ongoing it was just that there was a time period identified which was lengthy with no specificity about when the activity to protect activity occurred within that time frame because there was no allegation that it was an ongoing representation your honor as is that correct that's what was found that was one forty three to one forty five of the appendix and there is also from each one thirty nine to one forty two a list of cases that he represented then we saying now that the record shows he was in casing continuous representation right yes ok if he wasn't engaged in continuous representation you have no quarrel with the district court right because because which is that we don't know what happens between ninety five and two thousand and nine we're trying to find something that's close enough to the time to kells support for it being proximate in time and therefore he's not saying th record show anything about whether in fact he was representing somebody within a month or two of firing yes with respect to to the case zero nine positions i probably should by number but in each of the cases there is an explanation and it's not that his application didn't stand out well it was for  example the people that were hired had experience working with the people that were actually hired staffing limitations more experience in the particular reasoning was well i supervised this person i know i know from where where he comes from i know his performance i'm going to see him i'm going to choosing because i have worked with him and can i just get to get you have how many cases are you you've got five cases that's relevant to the well yes that's relevant but the other cases there's a different kind of protected activity to show you well the thing is that the only protected activity that stands that stand out and it was the basis of th there's a lot of there's a myriad of reasons on why the commissioner chills the person he chose and he was because of experience seniority personal observation and references and there was nothing wrong with or her mind to go to florida sure she stayed in the process so the agency canceled that vacancy had nothing to do with it in the case where they say he didn't stand out i think this is that there's too many cases here which is why in the case where they say he didn't stand up ok there were the phrase quote unquote nothing stood up yes it refers to that compared to the  experience one thousand years minimum versus eight or nine that apple and hat the other employees were much better qualified they had seniority in their performance was better so in some point in time there was  comment in the sense that compared to these all this on the other candidates really the bottom line was that i o u s did not stand out and that's a for them for me that there's nothing wrong the not supervise any anybody because the soldiers security on the other hand the two candidates were chosen because they have previous supervisory position so what comes clear in this case when there's paperwork and connection with the rendering of these are in decisions correct that's correct and that is a form yes it can be a for me it's some sort of written it's doesn't have to be one particular type of form here's what i'm getting at there were were instances in which the decision maker on the hire said that mr royo resume didn't stand out are standing as it is that in many of not all of those where they said that they also gave a concrete reason that's true the person had more experience the hiring person was familiar with one but the one who really made the decision would be selecting officials and it's very clear on the record that again it was based on seniority performance person loves aeration and references and there's nothing wrong with that that's the problem with  are less there is some discriminatory reason for the fully on hiring of an employee the chords i should not see it as a super industrial personal and fifty two substitute the criteria was due to staffing limitations was unable to select any applicant not employed in the my ago as district decision made entirely on seniority yes there is no absolutely no