timely filed under twenty eight us two to four for day and two whether there was is a basis for equitable tolling of the limitations period i'm concerned about your section you talk about feel if i if i may we have no instruction from the district court when any of mr ponds issues that he raised on reviewed in any way in the district court therefore when the squire requested that i file a as a second brief pursuant to slack the mcdaniel and make a substantial of constitutional right i went back and looked at the issues that were raised in mr and i went back and looked at the record and i raised the claim concerning bruton that his co defendants testimony against him was  properly redacted in there for prejudicial your honor i'll be quite honest with you when i went back and looked at mr bonds for claims that i saw that were raised in the pro se hey b and i was preparing for my argument today i went back and i looked at his amended petition your honor it is my understanding that the claim raised in the defendant's counsel amended pcr a petition in state court raises a claim that his counsel was ineffective by preventing him from testifying at his trial i thought that claim had very because i also believe that the that there is a transmission of the records from the district court and that there may be a missing documentation and i believe  examination and i only received it and quite frankly i was focused on the first question which was the procedural question but would then when i received a request to do a further review of the and i'm making the claim that the district court did no independent review my argument is that the district court received the p petition did a mechanical calculation did not examined the listeners i'm sorry the appellant's objections and what the district court said was he's out of time and he figure out i would try to explain myself better here i mean that there is a procedural go fall but you don't want to see it's a procedural and that's something that should have been in the truth say his petition wasn't in the out of the field back in may i was on a panel that looks each of us look each week at various petitions the people have for certificates of appeal ability and we decided based on an investigation and a memo of a staff attorney that a certificate of appeal ability should be issued it was it was issued on the ground that the procedural rolling denying mr  ounce petition as time barred was debatable the problem which was ours was that we needed to take a look at a second prong and that is whether there was a substantial showing of the possible denial constitutional right and the supreme court has said that you can do that one of two ways either you demonstrate that jurors a reason to disagree or the jurors could conclude that the issues presented are adequate to do his or encourage that's the second prong on either of those if you could address if you take us back to the job that we did not do on our end is there and supposedly two of them ramon roman excuse me and ortiz did not implicate pub own initially later they change their their testimony or that or their statements and gave testimony that he was there is that correct that's correct and the statement that was reading was of what they say was that he says and it says is there anything you would like add to your statement answer yeah i know that i didn't shoot the girl who got killed another should be arrested for this now how does that necessarily point the pub own back to the point to where taba who was allegedly that's the way i understand it your are and thank you no my understanding is that confessed to shooting quote in the direction close quote from which he really ortiz had been shot and that brings me to my second problem to a detective it was not videotaped that was transcribed in english so mr boehner is challenging that confession and chamar challenging that statement and that's where we are with that but your be your brewton issue is that there was a non testifying person statement right in that implicated pub bone in my question to you which started us off on this is how did that quote another person close to implicate a bone were convicted of first degree murder a first degree murder conviction requires a specific intent and i don't know that that could be that that could be proved just from those statements this is this was  convicted by virtue of association with these that's what a statement may have come in and said but clearly they found the evidence that was that there were fingerprints and then there was reaching statement but yet they would still have to prove each and every element of a first degree murder charge and with regard to iran they would have had to prove that he intended in that it was a conspiracy for that to happen and mr von said that's not what happened and he said that through an interpreter the issue that i did not s that was what was for the raised and if mr john had testified through jury could have heard exactly what he had to say in his own words this was a trial before judge greenspan they had f vasquez and i think we touched upon in the brief how this is totally distinguishable from the circumstances and vasquez where you had a two person case where taking aside the concern turns about these how far do in school and those are things the police would know the answer to so he's arguing that's evidence that scene is not really his lead effect is that i'm sorry i couldn't hear the last part ok i'm sorry he is saying that those things are indicia to support his argument that the statement is not his because he was not the kind of things in the statement that oftentimes usual you find in statements and that is those are things that only the defendant would go see just how hard it was in school those kinds of things they were asked to believe the man who contracted for the killing i guess i think i mean the most comfortable most probable if you're going to say if you're going to run out of the many people involved in the shooting by i want to call you saying that the thing that makes it relatively understand things from my recollection of the record that the that the killing was instigated in part by mr peck on an island sentinel as payment of the shooters and i guess if are gray in richardson and the supreme court cases but also taking into consideration the guidance given under roscoe's where you have circumstances that put this whole case wholly apart in terms of prevent that implication that if any one it was i would i would believe him but but i'm not aware of any restriction on to the case law to only being to don't resolve the merits we just said i think that it's a possible violation that people of reason might be able to go one way or the other and or is this recourse that deserves further encourage point that you're moving so far away from t his is a statement that there's there's hope for we're moving well some of the guys i know i didn't shoot because i'm standing right next to him i couldn't missed him another guy anothe deep and i'm trying to figure out why is this not a bone these are fine too if i'm on the jury how do i know that he's not fingering boehner in a statement well you know more and then you know that it's not any of the other people which are again three other and everyone knows we know that's not the case but the jury doesn't know that well it could have either been hernandez or  ultimately get to the merits because of all of the things that have happened here procedurally with it we've got a case of a person who doesn't understand english you've got a judge who thinks well that makes the problem because his counsel clearly understood spanish turns out ms rodriguez made it clear to writings she doesn't know any spanish and i mean it's sort of like she couldn't agree or disagree disagree more because this is really when you think about it some really mistake of law and it's very clear under lawrence the florida and james martin and many other cases and sort of universally attorney doesn't speak spanish i mean you don't really want to know that you say in your brief to have a bright line that a reason for equitable extraordinary circumstances because they try to do all these things that exert diligence they don't sleep on the right and yet they were recruited for meeting the following lines of ed why isn't that exactly the kind of thing that is what you take well it's very very a possible reason for equitable tolling is that the person cannot speak the language in which the person is being indicted and as not get help and all we're saying here is isn't that a he was in the restricted housing unit for five years he did not allege that that was not for disciplinary reasons he did not allege the time period that he was in the restrictive housing unit he was incarcerated at at the latest in  translation services he had available when he was able to do excuse me i couldn't know what kind of translation services he had available to him when he was able to do that i get everything you're saying might mean when the end of the  opinion recommendation said in a footnote that the defendant would have the opportunity to have notice an opportunity to be heard the defendant then filed  decides that this case should be remanded the appointed counsel for two reasons one i think that the certified record has to look at it in its entirety to make sure that it's complete and