it's been some twelve years since the shooting event last ten years since the change of plea approximately massive vine's litigation in the state and federal court i stand before this court today with the issues to crystallise to a couple of legal concepts and one critical factual finding and i will concede to the court in all candor here today that my only hope of her family on this appeal is if i can convince the court that the district court is that basically the theory of this case when we came out of the federal evidentiary hearing that crystallized that this that this is a shooting that occurred with a lot of or so if you can't win this is and a fair amount of state evidence of evidence against my client in the pending charges at the time that he was facing the murder charges in this case he was sent off about seventy miles away to a prison called indian springs which is that many miles northwest northeast  las vegas and he was held there at various times and the record shows this and the history of segregation because even disciplinary problems and because the nature of the charges that use these words for so this complicated the communication between defense counsel and also have an icy claim which is interesting because we have a defense attorney who by all measures did a great job in this case except for one facet which is that the channel of communication between him and the client broke down and it was partly because of the fact that the client was being held district court found that communication operate down and in fact mr manners communicated to mr poston tina all the school the tory information that he did on earth and the significance of this is that what our claim is that mr coast and tino and this is the guy who didn't plead guilty to after opening statement submit that that finding was clearly erroneous and the reason why and this all comes down to a comparison of a pretty brief portion of the record if you look at pages two forty three to two forty six this is mr mann i was the defense attorney talking about his discovery practices and what he says you know essentially in those in those that portion of the record is that he believes that his policy was a you know that he would not just send discovery to the prison because that led t problems of people getting a hold of this government the discoveries that would be coming state's witnesses which is not an uncommon problem at all that he has procedure was that this information should be communicated to the client but he had no specific recollection  ever having been done let me ask you testifies that was my usual practice to do it i was under the impression that my investigator mr di and it was supposed to do it i was under the impression that the other attorney the co counsel who wasn't able to testify because he's  had massive problems with the bar and with this personal life and nobody could locate him before the hearing after this that this other co counsel was doing it for mr man as can never testify affirmatively that it was done like it was my policy to do it should have been done i that finding clearly erroneous to have any hope of prevailing on this mildly mechanism for viewing at this point in the court is this record and saying that the testimony on one side from the attorney was equivocal and nonspecific testimony from my client was very global story evidence that he had discovered through these investigations and obviously the we have the clearly erroneous standard we also have a heightened level of songs by this court because we have erroneous is based on the idea that mr main else has no specific recollection of give these documents the guy or get i just talked to him with that or not but we have two channels of physical document that you know and in addition to mr manage those own practice he decided well some of the stuff was just talk about and he specifically talked our testified before judge pro about either how his investigator mr diamond himself or his co counsel mr michael eavis would have discussed these issues with him and so i think that testimony in the record in and of itself supports judge four hours on not initial days and in the record expert of record sixty five and fifty one odds that pinpoints of mr amount of his testimony but he talked about how we went over all of the evidence pro and  con we have the trial file which is believable i mean they were going to trial they had everything that they were going to present and the testimony specifically is we went over all of that evidence pro and con we just discussed all statements police reports investigated communication the court cannot find that judge prose determination number twenty two is clearer with maybe initial even with the initial question of whether or not mr mouse that specific recollection of whether or not his client had actual documents for someone had discussed with him these items if you add the second layer where there's they're spending four hours prior to entering a plea with the trial file with two attorneys who were prepared to go to trial there is absolutely no excuse no reason why they wouldn't be able to do that in fact mr mantle's did testify that they've stuffed all the material voluntary nature of this plea they might not have actually gotten into the specifics of which documents or which items of evidence mr kasich you know was made aware of at the time of the plea entry but there were other issues where that  flying's where you have another judge out there who pretty much had the same take on mr costin shiels credibility and so if there's no further questions on that regarding this