ninth circuit which control the outcome in this case both of which i have cited in twenty two letters to the court the first is shot of us versus them our that case the court held that you think there's any tension between gaston and king versus roe versus roe no your honor i don't because that i believe that in the big case we're the ones that explain that if you're and this court made clear that petitions that are filed in ascending courts are entitled to tolling it didn't discuss sideways and second in the united states supreme court decision of directly it does say that the language in it looks as though that is a requirement that you be filing in the sending courts and the fact that in cases like they all say in a standing courts that can't be a coincidence there has to be a reason that the courts keep saying filing without without the storage ng dismissing it for whatever legal reason saying it was improperly filed but if they accept it for finally and adjudicated on the merits aren't we applied the term overlapping if you look at the holding of delhomme in that case the overlapping petitions were in time they weren't overlapping in claim and it doesn't make sense to say you can overlap claims and get tolling because that would support the spirit  filing going on and they said that second round of filing doesn't affect the first tolling but the overlapping they discussed was in petitions in time not claims what is the stage view on the term round ones which were not adjudicated in the first petition that's true they did let him do it i think it's a little different though because what the state court had asked for in the first petition in its denial was we need additional facts i think it's a hard argument to say you need thank you the statutory tolling provision of the aid d p a is meant to accommodate exhaustion and therefore overlapping claims does not refer to overlapping in time it refers to overlapping in claims you are entitled the in is required to present all of his or her claims to the state's highest court under the exhaustion doctrine and therefore it's overlapping claims that were supposed to be looking at and not overlapping in time and not just like makes sense if you are focusing on the supreme court but california is arrangement is so unusual you could go to the supreme court first and then come back down to the superior court  within your first filing in that situation in which wages but here mr thomas only went to the united states or the the california supreme court once and he did it after presenting the issues in that in the lower courts so petition that was denied four and a half years later there was another petition in the california supreme court with new and different planes and in that case this court held well we're not going to say that the indefinitely the one year at the statue of limitations by going up a line and then starting immediately after the supreme court dismissed it the next day filing in the lower court entitled to tolling during the gap so there is no incentive here for attention or unreasonably delay the california courts might well you can reasonably delayed and in that case then this court will not  that the time limitation is the only thing that they they have to face this procedural bar their second successive positions so any concern that that you're going to be willing only filing things in s court for the purpose of delay is just not a rational concern let me see if i understand your definition of one full round this is reminiscent of the question i ask your opposing coun what do you mean by one full round for example if you start at the court of appeal and then go down to the supreme court and then after the supreme court is that one floor and if there is at least one overlapping claim supreme court or the or the last court to render a decision does but then one could start another round could one not well it actually begins running thirty days after the california supreme cries deny what it whatever i missed it but then filing new claims would start a second round the gap between the end of the first round in the beginning of the second round is not sole true true but the point i'm trying to understand here is that one could get the denial from the supreme court in the mail and the very next day start a second round and you only consume one day of the statute that's correct and one could continue to do that indefinitely as long as as you're careful not to let too much time expire between the end of the round in the beginning i was talking that's correct thank you very much counsel the case just argued will be submitted for decision and we will  argument in walker versus roe we have same counsel slightly different factual situation i think it would be very useful have you highlight the difference