filings which presumably includes a notice of appeal as well rule for a me for b of the federal rules of the pilot procedure direct criminal defendants to file their notice of appeal in the district court the answer to number one whether you have to resort number and i haven't seen anything in the cases that i've been looking at that give me any indications of what the proper procedure would have been and i think that you know that's part of the problem in this entire case is we don't the proper procedures just simply aren't clear and to expect pro p wonder if he wanted to make sure the court knew he was doing it for free it's court so it's good to get your would justify equitable tolling and you say you the judge accepted your representation as being accurate for purposes of her ruling do you think that that can be reversed under our standards yes you can you can judge and what's the argument that there are extraordinary circumstances warrant because there was an order from the district court which i have never seen in any other case being stopped filing meetings we haven't all the time they're not they made it into  our circumstances are reasonable time it's not it is an extraordinary circumstance in a time is reasonable given the problematic way in which the district court previously addressed the petitioners pleadings he basically was at a paper they could have chosen to treat it as any i need to i believe that's fair so let's having not no it's not noticing it was the problem because that was not acted on one way or another and it could have been acted on in a way that would have saved this problem yes but the district court's failure to notice and act on and to correct the problem is an error that is going to provide for rule sixty six rel petitioner and then is ending up with a couple of them competent counsel who may not be a constitutional right to have the counsel but if you had those three things together those extraordinary circumstances that would seem to be the never ruled on that pressure never ruled on the merits of that prior motion to reconsider she just said i'm not in a read anything if there was no ruling on the merits of the prior if that was a prior sixty motion it was no ruling on the merits the only other point i'd like to make and i think i will say right away it's absolutely clear discipline is sitting in court today is not the attorney who was on this case before but the attorneys general office attorney general's office and all prosecutors are the only attorneys under the rules of professional conduct who do have an ethical obligation to do justice to  not just be aggressive litigants and get the best result for their client they have an obligation to do justice and if the very colorful scenario that judge kozinski put forward that then noted noticing petitioners motion to withdraw t do with it if it happened but there is an obligation on the prosecutor's part to do just justice wasn't done in this case this young man is doing thirty years to life and has never had injury cation on in there because of erroneous rulings that i sure hope altogether to to try to go back i mean if we went to change in policy and she said yes i'm definitely going to stay in a day under rinds and i'll let you go do it i would do it that it wasn't worth delaying this process anymore it's my