telephone and mr for now also on the telephone all right you don't have the benefit of a digital clock although you probably have a watch or some other clock but i'm going to at least try to give you a little warning when we get down to about two minutes so you'll know what your time is since we are on the phone is helpful if you would speak clearly and slowly which i'm sure you would do if you were here but sometimes it gets question and i think what we need to do is get down to the basic what is the requirement for the second prong and the right price under the second prong to see them fall whether there is under representation between the community and the master will under this neither side of the comparison is the community or the mass appeal is reduced to take into account actual ability to serve on the jury ok so let me go back to what i'm i'm interested in is this potential for a circuit conflict or some tension in the circuit law and the difficulty i'm having in this is there seems to be some tension about what you can do in one of these jury cases if you have only the unrefined data but given the data that suppose that was made available here through the expert consultant which is the actual refined data it seems to me that if that's available that needs to be used and that that does not actually give rise to a conflict and i would appreciate your comment on that of course i think there's two issues with that one i think treasury a slut does more than that and actually does say that the and in the grand jury let and they found that actual billeted there is not until the person appears in the district court and that's part of the problem could work comparing think and i'm fortunately minimises the under representation that you can take it into consideration and you can't take it into consideration because it's not reliable and it cannot assumption and unfortunately stereotype that it's impossible to capture this data so it's impossible to say it's a refined data all hund and unfortunately because of these obvious and obvious inference well when that the criteria for jury eligibility and so we reinforced only minimum my spanish population to a degree that unknown at this time and that by me would be requesting i remember you have them two minutes remaining you want to say that district court did in this particular case now when you look at the evolution of this this question you start off with sanchez lopez and in that particular case the issue concerning jury eligibility came up because the ninth circuit said well you don't need to do that because we'll just work they don't need to do that and we can just work with the statistics they did present and that particular case with cystic were such that as that don't frankly i don't know where that comes from other than the the the anecdotal statements that are being made here on appeal certainly nothing in the record to substantiate which senses lopez says you can do and and presented now what would happen in a real world situation is if the if the defendant came forward only with the with the scanty data that they proposed that they this particular case the level where another that refined data is going to get into the is going to get or the court there's no way to avoid it do you agree there's a conflict in our cases you know i don't believe there is i think that i think that the yar decided then then then maybe we should go and bank and we're happy to do that because we're confident we're going to prevail in the end do you think that this panel has the authority to say that it was wrongly decided well certainly the panel rodriguez laura said that to maybe send intervening supreme court precedent to cast doubt on our prior decision which would be the standard you might be able to give something do you have any such case i do  reasoning when he's talking about fucking about it stands to reason that border counties reports of actions would have significant numbers of immigrants not what eligible to serve on federal juries and that was that was the bald statement made thing you should be looking at three out of the hispanic and then i'd like to address the issue of re find data again there is a real problem and in looking at jury eligible community force lower the comparison to compute community to jury eligible numbers without doing the same in the math wheel which includes three eligible and non jury eligible hispanic community then we're not entering the proper comparison and we're minimizing the under representation thank you the united states versus