that he had consecutive sentences two consecutive life sentences or twenty years or whatever it was and he immediately filed a stick so to to get some clarification nine years later inmates and it's the way that you say well something's wrong with the situation here and you have to go to the immediate counselor then that goes to another level of eventually ends up before the director of corrections and  sentences can construct and at that point he starts his litigation and so i believe that the starting point is a twenty three ninety six when he finally advised now he goes through two rounds and this is the question there's a gap of eight and a half months between september of ninety seven and and july of ninety eight now during that gap a petition before the california supreme court on july eighth one thousand nine hundred eighty which is denied in march of ninety nine and then he's in federal court within the thirty days so the question is whether or not this eight and a half months away between when he was representing himself and when he between counsel to file the supreme court petition whether or not clear this way so now the question is whether or not very in a half month to lay between when he represented himself and when he got an attorney to do the petition to time just being you never talk to your counselor i mean counselors and joke i mean there's no counseling in prison but basically that's what they call you get a copy yourself no not really in then you go up and you question it because you start worrying when you're going to get out after hundred three five cited several cases where the there was an eighteen one three for example and a fifteen month delay and they passed on the merits therefore it wasn't regarding  finally so the ninth circuit said four and half months away he's entitled to towing i mean at the supreme court this court's example to now since then there's between the various levels of the collateral proceedings there's no answer yet that i can find and i'm and i'm that's why i'm happy to be before this court because i want this court faster that question and then the court concludes second or more important none of these orders of the california supreme court contains the words for lack of diligence which means on timeliness which is to say they are denials made so w sample case was a five year delay in this case there's a nine year i mean eleven year delay and the superior courts the first denial by the state superior court back in ninety six was that the eleven year delay so in this a there's a difference between procedural fault and proper a timely filing and that's what's really at issue here the procedural the fault is one that we can raise with the district court in the event that this case does go back on current president and the only question is well there are two issues the first one goes to the first case raised by the court in its letter and that's sort of the the issue of dick because of the unjustified delay in presenting the claim to the time told from then on your honor it's a good question there is a  a claim and one court and never pursued that claim and filed another claim and pursued that claim and under to let if i'm not mistaken court and recently decided that one seems to be the one most applicable here it involved a delay of  but it has changed its mind and not told anybody i don't know if you know what why we why we would except that i  are we talking about whether the the station even got through the door yet there it was a sixty three possibility and three possibilities one they looked at the case and they said he was delayed too long in starting this process back and superior court and that's why we're citing the on time line as far as second in which case and that's what we concluded and sampled and it didn't prevent merits decides that you waited too long you did this he did that but you failed to do something else it's properly filed but it is denied because of procedural default reasons if the petition comes to the court but were dealing with the merits and on the procedural elements think under the circumstances where you have two weeks intervening between the first contact and the second contact you wouldn't make a probable cause arrest i mean i know they can write a r t for that what i'm thinking let let's say hypothetically no question the man committed a crime and they don't know what quite where he is here it's not that big a crime that they're running around looking for may have another team coming out of here they can arrest  well i think they can given appropriate circumstances and probable cause arrests are done all the time but can you give me the already for this proposition that they can't do a probable cause arrest they need a warrant other than the fourth amendment you know i i frankly i didn't research the issue it's just my feeling and experiences that if they were in this case they grabbed this year a vest that they contact the sheriff's department it's only blind luck that this fellow was there i'm not really complaining about the second raft although i think it it's it's instruct when they made suggestions this was all very friendly but there's evidence on the record that i pointed to that would show that this is a somewhat clear motive off balance sort of the town score and that is not to say stupid things and skip the places which of course there's what brings them to the situation but that doesn't obviate the need for them to out officer needs a warrant an arrest warrant to arrest somebody in their home inside that case i believe there's another case that they cite which is actually the one that stands for that principle that you can arrest someone in a public place without a warrant you just have to have probable cause and the some statement the agent made about not having an attorney for seventy two hours and if you look at the hearing it's all geared to that and you correct that because the district court found that the defendant had freely and voluntarily provided evidence and statements that is reviewed for when the when agent sheridan with asked the question i think he said he was detained but that does not mean arrest and also that would not undercut in any way the fact that the defendant had freely and voluntarily went with voluntarily give up where these weapons are located which again would dissipate any possible taint that may have arisen from taking him to the station he's left at home after they leave he remains at home so again he's not arrested ops person who put someone away the thousand yards using my rifle again that shows the weapon lundberg witnesses testified the defendant had used or had handled weapons when he was threatening the the witness who testified that he made one of the weapons and that he gave it to the defendant so there was sufficient evidence independent of the weapons that the government had never introduced the weapons to show jury this would have been the reason they would have convicted it is it was it would not have been the reason based on the record we have before us there was sufficient evidence to show the defendant had weapons come down the defendant says ok they transport him in handcuffs and he's transported and ultimately he's arrested that seems any faster markedly different from what happened here i would also note that the defendant when he was handcuffed from the ride was not under arrest and again he was allowed to remain at home after the search was completed thanks catherine thank you the difficulty here is the firm that was convicted directly because of items seized on the twenty six there was nothing other than that that the two witnesses the neighborhood witnesses one was an elderly lady that couldn't even identify him in the