may please the court and counsel first off thanks so much for sitting with us i know it's been a long week for you guys were at the very tail end now so it's almost over you know the case in front of you mister lyman seems like it's broken up into two relatively concrete areas one is the merits of what we've raised on appeal and the nd is the procedure and whether or not this court can really address the merits of the issue itself the merits to me seem relatively straightforward i know that the government put in its motion that they found it to be somewhat confusing i disagree with that characterization it seems abundantly clear that the underlying offenses that were used as predicates was a failing perhaps on the prosecutor's office to change the charging information to make it consistent and accurate with the updated nature of missouri law i don't think that that par is too incredibly  think the argument that i made in the alternative about whether or not they they qualify or not i think is foreclosed at this point by shooting and i know that the government put that in there i think where we stand now procedur conviction though so how do you get around the costs case yeah there's a think truthfully that the procedure ramifications of this case cert drinkin honestly there's a lot of procedural chasms that mister lyman is going to have to walk through in order to get relief i would stand in the breach which is st i don't use much as a collateral attack i'm aware of the case law that essentially says that the only way that we can get relief is if he does know are you saying that you want this court to rule that the prior convictions are invalid yes and you're saying the customs does not preclude that because  motivating factors for the ruling cost to us but i wonder whether it's a reason why we can allow an exception that would be my remaining question but i don't want to think up all your time no i understand where you're coming from and i were in the court shoes reading this i think what we see is a lot of proceed rule barriers to granting relief for mister lyon but this is a unique situation i don't think often this court's desk is going to have a case come across like this because fundamentally the idea is a person should spend a day in jail for something that they didn't do or something that is not criminal so he was convicted of something that was no longer criminal when he was convicted of it to me this is a special circumstance you can just look at this and say well that's an invalid conviction and it's not against the spirit of it's not a collateral attack we're simply saying it doesn't document that shows what happened at the plea hearing for the state convictions i know we have the charging documents but do we know whether he admitted knowledge at the plea hearings on where the other we i believe that there is language that talks about that the information or the indictment is sufficient and in this case we do have the information that has been filed this case is in front of this for information very clearly think you're referring to the sheppard line of cases which says that the court can rely on charging document when we're trying to figure out whether a person was convicted of offense a or b and say a statute is visible the issue here is a little different i think because the charging document charges two alternative mens rea near saying that one of them is insufficient under state law we don't even know whether the judge in t plea straightened it out right i had no knowledge of men's room so i guess you've already said you don't know all i'm just i think questioning whether the shepard piece is really help here yet and thinking about the top of my head i know that it's not exactly on point and i can imagine this is something that probably comes like i said before this quote with the mouth a frequency if the court would deem relief would be appropriate to go back down and look at this from an evidentiary perspective would be abbe to do that i recognize is a unique situation and i think that mister lyman does too we're simply standing for the proposition that someone shouldn't go to jail for longer on something that is clearly noncompliance with missouri law so i think i'm no one had need additional questions i'd like to reserve the remaining amount of my time very well you may thank you for your argument mister hurst will from doing and there's good reasons for that which for which we've discuss d the the it was a if you all say a few words about the about the actual convictions the i think there's a maybe a disagreement we have about exactly or if you have a question didn't think that was the judgment is that the actual judgement in the case i rejected this same sentence and judgment that that's how i read it the docket your honor but if it's not you would i have to say so i'm not aware of another document the case that would answer your question but you think that document you're referring to hanson is the question i for your honor i'll be honest i don't i think i'm looking at it i don't see  confusing area in off what was the law and in the two opinions that you mentioned by justice roberts and just spend ten what was the law and time of these prosecutions what was the men's r but i just question whether the shooter really resolve but thank you for your argument i think your time has expired i see that your honor thank you very much lou that's mister o'connor we'll hear from you in rebuttal thanks very much just one thing i want to clarify in terms of the line of cases that the government cited to carson had in the center they all come to the same conclusion that it's not it's not reckless it's not now how they come to that determination is fascinating judge pitons opinions interesting read but the truth is they all see it as knowledge not reckless so the way that they got there may be different but they all agree that that is what the misery is i think that's all i have at the pool as any other questions i'll be happy again answer