appeal the dismissal would have been reversed and his petition reinstated and mr haney would long since have had a ruling on the merits of his underlying federal constitutional claim underlying claim by the way he's under his underlying claim is that he entered into plea agreements with the state of california and the state did not give him the benefit of his bargain but time has passed  roland automatically to release now there's no doubt that when changed and that was the expectation of some kind at least parole was more frequently granted at the time in the early eighty's that he did his plea and it was in the ninety's in the time was said to the that specific position or at the time of the plea that's not before the court and frankly i don't know about it because the first this was raised was three days ago in my experience  true in the eighty's and it was still not true in the mid ninety's the conditions shifted and they shifted in ways that we can only speculate about what the difference would have been for mr haney but one thing we can be clear on  him out of it told him all things are going up and he's guilty so what's wrong with well your honor i don't know because i haven't seen the transcript of what happened then i don't know what was said by the prosecutor then this court appointed me to much a mystery to me as it is to the to this court i can we can speculate but if ground vs school teaches us anything it's that a lot of things might have happened in that courtroom a lot of things might have been said between the defendant and things might might have been said by the prosecutor i think that all of that is properly to be litigated before the district court all i'm here for today is to ask for the opportunity to litigate that before the district titian or his claim is moot at this point because he has in fact had two parole hearings one in one thousand nine hundred eight for a possible and initial parole date of ninety nine which was denied and then he that argument is i would submit it's completely irrelevant to the fact that he wanted a parole eligibility he never asked for anything more and parole eligibility after twelve and a half years keep but he only ever wanted a parole hearing after twelve and a half years claiming time he wanted time he wanted to finally parole hearing so there's a four year difference between when he receives that no i don't have a case but after a physician i have done some searches and found that that would actually from my district a couple of district court cases  eligibility hearings which is all he's ever asked for all except for the purposes of of today's argument that that part of the case is moot because it's over and gone and can't be recalled the question  is still have one little heartbeat left in the past that should be resolved back to the file reference in a in a footnote in your brief it says half time preposterous not to be rejected on correct yes yes because it wasn't an available option at the time he was sentenced in august september of one thousand nine hundred two and that's why he signed a waiver on the third credit on the third time credits you know about a year later it have i actually had a hard time understanding seven of the form is unclear to me so i'm maybe just learning something that's not there but they talk about a recalculated day right down to eat because i wonder would they be doing that if would they be recalculating if at the time that he entered his plea there wasn't this halftime credit system in place to begin with second point and the central one is that there is a world of difference between between a  any other contract that would be before the court and where a specific promise has been made and that promise is impossible to smithville in other words the state five doesn't asked simply for recision he asked for a new or he doesn't say that either impression is that he felt that he was promised that he would be released on good behavior just as mr brown did in brown versus poole again this is so far beyond anything that it was with a gated blow in this case has been kicking around for seven years  the attorney general just saw fit to raise either of these issues in you know virtually the last hours these these matters were not litigated below but my impression is that he thought he was getting out and if that decision next based on the argument calendar gaveled on versus