move on to united states versus  conviction that was obtained by court marshal from the time that he was convicted he has been fighting the conviction in various ways that he could imagine in this case originally he was federal offender and the nichols case was distinguished i'm sorry holcomb was characterized that he was a state offender and nichols was the thing worse on the ground that the defendant in the cold with the federal fund indictment was valid after the nichols case which decided that the defendant cannot be prosecuted in kansas when he had moved to the philippines and not register there obviously because it's not the particularly a new issue understanding i don't believe that you're incorrect your honor however he had this was the st time that he was about counsel and he was trying to put forth the new objection on his own it's not  it's not a simple issue even though he very now very versed in it at the time with bill he was pro se he was learning and so he did not file that motion in time that the district court cleated there's a departing venue as well as the arrivals and you and i'm not sure i understand the distinction you're trying to draw between the portrayal of him in the st indictment as a federal offender combe between federal offenders and state offenders and that doesn't seem at the government's choice that it's being done what one what is to me what what is the distinction why why does it matter how are the two different counsel it was i didn't raise it in the initial brief but then to find sorry the government argued that mr diaz had to wave his right to appeal this issue because he had the challenge to the time and the district court blue brief which is when you have to resist well i would argue not necessarily or honor because i don't know that the government is going to pursue the waiver argument that that your client is entitled to watch a collateral and to act on his military court martial conviction in this sort of registration prosecution and i'm having difficulty seeing any basis within sorana or otherwise for that position what what's the strongest basis that you can suggest for a being allowed to attack the  not be attacked so that really doesn't  for a family to sit and watch as a defendant with a warning to back him can can challenge the underlying conviction but a defendant in a state united states prosecution could not it just seems illogical that that too that could be the outcome of the situation and in mr gale as strongly wanted to fight this it could have been limited the district court didn't have to allow him to opportunity when he's going to be subject to the rap the big life or this type of the type of registration be living in a trailer you know way out in the boondocks in virginia because what the and and your you that precludes any consideration of the venue argument on this appeal that is an independent basis of the decision which was not raised in the initial brief consuls collateral going there was no goes no basis in the statute or case law apply and similar statutes where the fact of apparent conviction was in elements of the crime to find that there is a basis to collateral respected double jeopardy with respect to all of those things and i believe those who say these things are for close to us but i've got to say that the notion of treating the sort of thing