pending state proceedings simply because a federal proceeding has begun and third it considered a prejudiced claim without reference to this court's decision and gregory that requires some nexus between the prejudice and the claim to light this court has found that concepts of federalism do not give way least in the speedy trial act context whenever a federal indictment is filed in lopez a spend a lot of this court noted quote it was its considered judgment that it is only  were waiting which suggests that they were aware of what was going on but what evidence actually is there besides his statement saying that they were waiting and that there is this declaration from the a t f that this is their custom and practice to take certain steps what actual with or confirming it doesn't say confirming with a t f doesn't well i guess i mean it could be grammatically read both ways i can see that you are but i think the critical point and the point w bringing that the defendant over for the federal trial what i think the district court suggested which i think is an error is that in the district court's order she says well why didn't they just read him over why over a range and then sent back to the state court which would have done a really no good as far as the speedy perception of this federal case or he could have been rigid over and kept in federal court for the federal case with all defendant be notified of the fire it requires that they get a speedy trial in this case the diligence was the reasonable diligence in bringing him over as soon as he was finished with the state court proceedings six weeks after the last  defense certainly doesn't make the statement that he did not know about it so so i think that is somewhat speculative but second of all you know i think that that to ask that question is kind of to divorce the issue from the presumptive prejudice analysis which is what this court was talking about and gregory if something happens so soon  after indictment that it wouldn't matter from a barker vs window perspective then it shouldn't be could considered prejudice for the speedy trial flies just because it might be prejudicial in the abstract you know let me ask a little bit more about th really one of the officers testified that the gun was in plain view in the car well it was night and we get to the windows there's reason to think that was going to be pretty hard to see in plain view  distressed that he had something that was going to help him that he turns out not to have true but he had two witnesses the seller of the car and the other purchaser of the car both of whom have testified perhaps even more persuasive your reply brief on page fourteen which you say listen i did i did it i did what you asked or something you know what you write is sanders claims that he committed the burglary before rather than after the federal indictment concedes that the record does not resolve the issue the government will accept that he committed to bradley before the federal charge well you had of the time you wrote that grief i think clear evidence that he committed the burglary not merely before the federal charge but before he was arrested on a charge of this now issue why didn't you just say so well i didn't merely say that i  exactly what you know to be true understood supreme court teaches and how it's supposed to be weighed but i'll take them as their attacks go will begin with the second barker factor i think it's important to note that the government's argument has changed substantially the argument that makes a district court may be summarized as follows are opposition before page seven this is for the delay the governor argued quote unfortunately the defendant was at least two days later for state custody and went on to commit additional crimes in different jurisdictions in the state and was not then able to be picked up on a warrant from the federal government you're sixty two and sixty three my last point sanders is to blame because he was quote racking up new crimes in the meantime now we even in your opening brief appear to leaven a repeat these allegations those have been proven to be inaccurate but have you shown that they knew there the opposition is the record shows that they did nothing to cheat child will can probe them repeatedly when did you know what you know when did you find out there was detain at the outset which was a woman wasn't he a judge curio the said she doesn't know when they learned about that he was sick of the state court they forgot about him she judge look and said well when you issue an indictment and you say you're going to issue detain or you know the state court's going to dismiss charges yes he's going to show up a couple days yes when he didn't show up what did you do i don't know they didn't have this information and so chief judge working correctly then found that they were negligent and that's something to a clear a standard under williams and now after being found negligent state change their argument the academic argument is they would have been s by the simultaneous prosecutions i think that's disingenuous to pass your honor asked a direct question was this deliberate your honor then i get an accurate answer then get any answer this what it was just a little i said you dropped the ball right and they were they deliberately wait the aware that he had gone to to laurie in real time to sell you in real time and they weren't aware we know that because one case agent left and if you look at the case it was declaration this case a new case agent came on in march two thousand and thirteen that's when they got back on the ball the new case agent s he researched mr sanders custodial sentence status and his history throughout the case on june twenty fourth two thousand and thirteen the day before the government father supposition of my grief so i think there's five reasons why you should reject your argument on trying to overturn the of constitutional finally well i'll go two ways i'll start with the facts i'll go with the law factually one thing that's missing is he was in alameda county custody in oakland california which sits across there and northern california for fifty golden gate are prisoners my clients of c j cases are housed in alameda county jail i was santa rita where mr sanders was or glenn dyer county jail so there would be no problem in bringing him over this is an academic problem every day today included there's a bus from santa rita going to four fifty going to thirteen of every day there's a bus going from glenn dyer to both locations when queried by the government at the outset minute yes we do rich people over here so we had them available we could have done i which is there has to be reasonable diligence and when the government is aware of some location it has to make some efforts and most importantly for grandma nine hundred seventy six case it says it and see i see warrant alone is not enough i'd also note that as a matter of sense i have a problem with the government's presentation because they told judge working was you should find a detainer was filed and you should find it because we found a new the new case agent found a note the father said he was going to file the detainer so we said the way the evidence shows that was done and he would have been brought here now before this court they say no no it's our practice to serve the warrant and wait but in the district court it was their practice to put the detainer on and we know this if the original case agent on january twenty six negligence that caused this was the government's negligence there's a box on the indictment sheet the cover sheet that asked the prosecuting attorney to let the court know has the government taken the step of filing a detainer that's the normal practice and to tell this court whether or not the government was or was not aware of your client be in custody in alameda or to our county isn't the government right that the court should consider the issue of federal interference in terms of interfering with an ongoing state proceeding clearly by early two thousand and two thousand and eleven you have a burglary prosecution going forward and so that the issue of federal interference so it is is fair game in terms of consideration i think that's unfair i think that i would disagree for a number of reasons one factually to suggest interference they do have to know about it they can at the end of their negligence prejudiced my clients a week skate by responsibility because this academic thing we didn't know about could have affected us that's not fair to mr sanders and it's inconsistent with the several which is from one nine hundred eighty when he said it could be to stay quit prosecutions to the lopez case prosecution so it's expense someone should wait it would be to laurie county they later brought these charges because mr sanders had been released had the government done its job and not been negligent mr sanders shows up in federal court the last week of january he doesn't get charged into warrick county until after this case over the notion that government can charge him ignore him and then by happenstance have him go around creation and say well we would have interfered no the state was interfering with us the reason the state was able to do so is because exactly it was negligent they were beyond passive they did nothing that's the finding in the record and that's not clear or are you it's a district which i think resolves what extent the government is telling this made a mistake and left the case and they forgot about sanders on balancing the market factors the district court was and for title to find that that facility was negligent and under williams you have to find that's clearly erroneous that she was a rational for making that decision as you know judge working as a careful judge she's done a willingly judge she worked through this record and did the balancing and found that it was negligence on the government and that should be that should be upheld on appeal the last argument i'd like to address if i may is is the government's claim that the prejudice is untethered through the delay and i'd make two arguments if i may one it's way they did not make that argument to judge well in that all the arguing to tell this court is well they didn't have a chance to cause it was late and i would respectfully suggest that is not true my reply declaration during the briefs made the exact same declaration we get from broderick tyson the next day i made information please because we couldn't get to tyson but this was joint and then we  got him to sign it so it was on the perjury at the argument the government never claimed it was late they never claimed happy tattered and now we have a factual dispute that the district court could have result had the government raise their hand and they said i was late had they said they disputed whether it was late it whether they had an opportunity to make this argument they're making for the first time on appeal there we just had this nexus argument when we know the car was sold in august but we don't know when the tent was removed and so they could have made this casualness this was an argument they wanted bec is enough to have you considered as tethered to prejudice and the color sold after six months or so we do have a high school nexus if the court reads greggory as the government wants its read so we do have that issue in any case the last thing i would say is that the truth tethering this case is the facts a troll judge will get which is how the government filed the detainer had they not been negligent in the first instance tauriel sanders shows up in february two thousand and twelve at the latest honour's i'd like to make five points for a bottle of if i have the time first the representation is just made at the to laurie county charges came after the federal charges in correct and that's cleared up on page forty one of the excerpts of record at the time the federal indictment was brought there were already three pending state charges alameda county drug charge the to larry county profile ation based on it and thirty pre existing larry carjacking case and that's the defense counsel admitting about negligence after the state sentencing the court relies on snuff versus who we which is a supreme court case that is all about delay after sentencing which is of course of course a completely different issue than delay during pending state proceedings  third the idea about gregory not applying first of all because of the waiver yes he mentioned something about tenting in his reply declaration but with no specifics as to time he just says before doggett and this court and why and said that eighty eight months is now considered the threshold minimum for the argument that we changed our argument from the district court in the district court we told the district judge that it was practice to arguments united states for sanders is now submitted for decision