season for score related had to be for the appeal as opposed to for something that's going to occur at the administrative tribunal well the season this day's work for work in anticipation of the appeal to determine that nobody in the line item number two it determines that a motion for reconsideration should be filed to avoid the need for an appeal i had a number three prepared and filed a motion for reconsideration a motion for reconsideration had nothing at all to do with an appeal or the filing of an appeal it has to do with your belief the work that went to determining whether there should be an appeal goes to the ultimate work on the appeal and in this case the work performed on the motion for reconsideration was the very basis that the government agreed that the matter had to go back to the board for reconsideration in other words the agency's lawyers decided over and above the board's determination on reconsideration that there was a valid basis for that motion for reconsideration and so that work was intimately connected to the appeal to the french court which was the of government action that implicated the entitlement to seize under egypt because the  action by the government was not correct and ultimately the court found that not only was mr wilder the prevailing party that the government's position was not substantially justified and therefore he was entitled to events and it is part retain jurisdiction throughout that process so the case was filed in the court the court needed something additional from the administrative part of you know every day added with a limited purpose of giving that additional information board decision so any work that was done that was necessary to that appeal to the court even though that was a proceeding that was conducted before the whole yes your honor well it was a proceeding that was conducted before the board but just as the time that is put in that should have been it was denied in this case for the assessment of whether or not there should or should not be an appeal that time is related to the ultimate judicial proceeding and that time is think that it is the work before this court and i suppose the work before the supreme court even though it may be setting up ultimately a supreme court case are in need for a supreme court filing if you want yes but i think the factual distinction in this case is that the grounds for the motion for reconsideration were the same grounds that the government when the case was on appeal decided that in lieu of proceeding further appellate action and it's every lawyers experience when you are looking at the question of whether to file a motion for reconsideration in any crisis in any situation one of the things you're considering is will and i'm ready to go up on appeal question you alluded to the actual nature of the court's inquiry and i recognize our limits to our jurisdiction but i'm what i'm wondering is that the court said very little about the issue here but the one sentence that does seem to address that question is the sentence here's on page two of the court agrees with the segregated these entries are on their face representative of practice not before the court but rather a foolish secretary so i would ask you what it is about the facts pertaining again to the first entry that would lead the court to draw that conclusion other than the time  at the record as a whole look at the timing when it occurred and the timing understand the timing but is there anything other than the timing because there's nothing on the face of the of the interest i can see that would lead me independently to maybe i understand what you're saying the gist of what you're saying seems to be that if you're in this situation where you've got two potential or actual proceedings going on and it's before the proceeding before the court has actually begun and while there are still potentially at least proceedings with where the board you need to be if you're going to make a claim for action for work that you're going to tribute ultimately t to me that attempting to parse out or separate the purposes of the work that the connection is clearly a step was to this appeal but more importantly this clearly established the temperamental action could have been corrected so we can go back all the way no you can not ask me to go back all the way i simply asked me to recognize that once there is a final decision and that decision is subject to appeal that work that is performed that is going to mentally connected to that appeal such as a motion for reconsideration which could moot and the learned the need not only for