the motion i thought there was some confusion as to whether it even thought that he had responded so i didn't know any of his arguments to go question your honor it we believe was received  responded would then a motion for reconsideration be warranted because they didn't have any of the information that was contained in that motion i don't believe so your honor because the wall again goes back to  ey not being aware that material facts so factor one still will not work reconsideration because you know mr hamdan didn't know of that fact and then secondly it's your point for factors or are you still don't believe that is not material here and therefore cannot establish the core factor on it's your reality counsel what about the simple fact that the board your reinstated the petition and the dismissed it authority to say i can't remember the exact language but sort of set aside some of the strict out locations of the deadlines and certain circumstances i think what your honor may be very phrase here is that appeal is  outline all of those cases that have that as your president that are not what do what do we do with the i think undisputed fact that there are two different versions of th hear his motion to reconsider be considered that most of that you're talking about yes thank you your honor my name is daniel colbert for the secretary of labor nuclear weapons like any of you to the tory voting the administrative review board exercise discretion when maintaining its own docket this case was unusual and has a confusing and even conflicting record and there are two copies of the ale jury's decision in light of all this confusion the air be exercised its discretion to extend the deadline to file a petition for review by three days a question to maintain its own dock now i'm the issue about how transparent if the board here were pretty transparent i can think of three or four things they say what about insulate this from  way i should say insulate that's too strong they would certainly help you a lot more what's the best thing you can point to in the board decision let me get it what's the best thing to point to in the board decision to say that they kind of made this for the right reason the right way and was the foundation so i would look at the facts that the air be actually cited it the air he doesn't really say it doesn't go through the factors of twenty six see it step  three day extension is justified and this actually brings me to the issue of whether it was correct to even entertain the motion for reconsideration and i think canadian pacific just has a different opinion than the a r v does of which facts are material and this record out because the air be also very much i considered the existence of the january th copy to be material and that clearly was a fact that was not known is likely did not consider that fact to begin material at that time but when taken together with the january th decision that late service raises some real questions about  have equitable authority to extend this deadline yes deadline there's site sites i think several cases that status such that yes the board has i can put your station to extend the state  in your view does that what is the significance of the board not expressly exercising at least verbatim in those words it's equitable authority as opposed to relying on the roll twenty states see is there significance there i think it makes the case a little bit more interesting here but no i think that it's not material because if you look at the decision it's clear that the the board meant to exercise its equitable jurisdiction even if it wasn't entirely clear if it could have been clearer and not concede that it could have been is the only material fact the page for i think i'm looking at the right document is the only material fact they find that the ale che's dno was not delivered to the complained until january twenty two is that the only thing they say  not explicitly but i don't know why they would mention it in the opinion if they didn't consider it to be material  my assumption is that the the a or b does not want to did not want to make a finding about when exactly this decision was issued but it's clear that it had some questions and in light of that uncertainty and in light of the fact that