adequately i'll spend a few minutes replying to the cases in the state supplemental brief that was filed last week and leave the rest of my time for questions in rebuttal in the supplemental brief to speak continues to argue that the some evidence standard supreme court authority which is superintendent versus hill those same three cases along with tyrants also explicitly found clearly established a pretty court precedent and that's when holt and hill excuse me agree we should follow some evidence and underhill that the question is what is the evidence that we should look at as some evidence is are the immutable facts of what this man did in his murder  nineteen years ago the evidence we look at do we look at his criminal history which is set in stone or do we look at the last fifteen years that he's been in jail now what the supreme court case used and clearly states that we cannot look at the immutable characteristics of crime and we must look at the recent evidence of his development first of all i'm not arguing the cannot look at the crime itself what i'm arguing is that under beds and iron and the supplemental authority that i just submitted that over time those of you book characteristics become less and less court's interpretation of what supreme court while requires in this context which is at a minimum persuasive authority and more importantly this court just a month ago in the iron's case reaffirmed that that's the law of the circuit of should be have a different rule underhill were minimum served and then when a minimum has not been served i think it's an issue that has been set up by this court in irons and it's ready to be decided what what what case has facts which fit within that category i'm going to run out of time so i just want to go and correct one kind of recurring factual error i would say in the in last week in the supplemental brief cited two on published cases that it's a show other panels have prohibited profile well rolled miles based on the crime after serving minimum term i would just point out in addition to being unpublished and not present in addition to the published case that i just admitted saying the opposite and this would be a good case to use the opportunity to end the confusion that neither one of those cases directly addressed the issue of whether the service of a continue to focus in solely on the commitment offense that that would raise the due process issue so i would rely on that as the circuits the law of the circuit and the circuits interpretation of supreme court actually hear you know you want me to stand up there the more you look like judge reinhardt who counsels correct the us supreme court did address to some evidence standard in the context of a president disciplinary case but since then in the last two years both the supreme court and in two other or three other cases cited by this circuit the court supreme court law that i circuit was looking at criminal trials and evidence of mental competency and they noted that in when wright was greenfield the court had in fact addressed the standards for mental competency during the evidence report of the criminal court noted that if a matter is an open question before the supreme court in other words so far there's only been possible supreme court dicta or persuasive circuit court authority establishing a standard that is still insufficient for purposes of correctly found that it was clearly established law that the immutable characteristics of the commitment crime could not be considered indeterminate under the hill test whether there was  currently a case and i have an interest in an overview that's applicable and in fact this report did actually consider that questioning in green holds one of the status of procedural protections that actually considered and rejected that any evidence cherry standard i was required and that's part of the issue as it's just as we're discussing with opposing counsel that there isn't going to have a supreme court of law yet there's this flexible standard that the district courts in the ninth circuit is struggling with and it's not strictly receptionists in the supreme