issues only one of which apparently is appreciably controversy by the state of california and that jurisdictional issue is whether ms min and was in custody at the time she filed her most re habeas petition under twenty eight u s c twenty two fifty four in february of two thousand and fourteen now in a motion for request requesting judicial notice which this court granted we submitted a document illustrating that ms moon as of september twenty i was in a probationary status on that day they superior court judge her to a three year term of probation which expired on september twenty fourth twenty fifteen but on the date but on the date that she filed her most recent federal habeas petition that probationary term prior conviction if that conviction can be deemed to be having an effect on the conviction for which she is in custody that's one different question though this from the question of probation at the time and you know as a result under do brenne your local want to county district attorney no she was challenging a charge prior which may have had an effect judge did take her prior into account and she did have a felony prior from two thousand and ten and probation revocation in two thousand and eleven and you know as a result when you look at the you have to be in custody under that conviction or sentence that center attack and you basically sort of you tacitly concede that her probation status in september of twenty fifteen was soley for the the perspective custodial sentence right and my capture in your argument not persuasive argument is that the prior charged in connection with the twenty twelve conviction may have had an effect on most recently received and that may very well may have been the case we admit that acknowledge that the record is not entirely clear on that point and so entirely clear on what basis the superior court judge sen and twelve what reasons and what factors here she took into account and so we we have requested a reversal of the district court's order but we acknowledge that it before i directly address your question your honor well but i'm asking the question now not for you to step back if let's say she is in custody that we accept your argument why isn't her petition untimely she filed a series of post conviction motions your honor starting in just that on timely or not we don't know your honor because we don't have sufficient records to know precisely how many post conviction motion she filed starting in late tw latest of the date on which the state court judgment became final and so a judgment becomes final when at the conclusion of direct review when the supreme court affirms a conviction on the merits and or if it's the state court a petition has ninety days to seek review to the supreme court and hurt and in this case unclear on i again given the opportunity would try to develop the record further to make it clear as to whether she was in custody at that time you know i should note that the law vs the parole rate you're talking about the other the twenty t regarding the twenty ten and twenty loving convictions or theories based on the two thousand and twelve conviction as interpreted in lackawanna i would just think if she was on parole on the twenty ten that would help you right but certainly would your notice to appear there is no hearing that is presently scheduled for her she's still technically a lawful permanent resident the united states and she would be seeking remedies in immigration being tortured or killed if she were to return because she opposes the regime thank you thank you very much  petition was denied for lack of jurisdiction on timeliness and because it was mixed in her subsequent filing her subsequent petition this maneuver did not demonstrate that any of those errors had been cured and therefore the district court properly summarily denied relief as it stands if miss maneuver is deemed to be challenging her two thousand time conviction and there is no jurisdiction because she is not in custody pursuant to that judgment if she is deemed to be judged challenging her two thousand and twelve conviction then the petition is untimely all of the state court filings that the council mentioned discussing the challenge to two thousand and ten conviction would not count towards equitable tolling or statutory tolling for the two thousand and twelve conviction for both those reasons the district  properly summarily denied relief you know what bothers me is there is some indication in the record right that she was on parole it was a mention of brawl in the record there is a mention of parole in the record in the sense that the district court i mean they did very serious court recalculated her sentence the term that she had satisfied all of the time in custody in order to report to parole now typically that would be a counseling sort court with a complete record yes your honor and but there's nothing in here about what happened in that order to go to going to parole well there's nothing in here because the state was in a party to the summary denial that issue was litigated in the initial petition the jurisdictional aspect always is still being asserted here you know as a jurisdictional my rights and she's not in custody so don't you have the obligation to furnish the records so we can determine whether she was parole well yes your honor we have provided everything we have and there is no state court documents discussing her parole status with that parole officer that's not a part of the record and again like i said your honor this maneuver had satisfied her entire sentence it's not as though she had done eight percent or less and was going to be on a condition of parole it was typically it's the counseling  discussing resources available to parolees or people released from prison so she had no jail time left hanging over had yesterday so if she had violated her parole let's say she did report would there be any can she do any more time no your honor the as i said that sp twelve there was no indication that parole was revoked or that she was going to run her sentence concurrent to any other prior conviction well are you refuse any of that  you know phrases i don't know what your rank in regular you know record searches procedure is in these kinds of cases when your response but under your regular procedures and if there were a parole record it would have been produced i was not your understanding that is my understanding of the typical course i was not the attorney who handled the initial petition but i know that the issue among those law in california if someone gets arrested for a second offense as she did here if they're on parole the parole agent would generally put what they call a thirty fifty six hold on them yes meaning hey you're on parole this is a potential violation and the record doesn't indicate any out and we're all told when because is that if you're on parole don't they have to automatically put a hold on you if you get a new offense yes  agent may not revoke parole that's true your honor but if you're booked into custody then your parole status is in the record and someone is notified but it may not actually result in a rotation of parole you have th any record i suppose i could contact parole and ask them for a definitive date of termination it may be in the initial the titian record state do you know if the federal government waits to bring keep her cation proceedings till after the defendant has served her sentence is there any mechanism by which a defendant can challenge her underlying conviction for failure of counsel to advise her about the confinement by the state and federal government will initiate deportation proceedings at that time all i know in this case is that i contacted ice last week and he said she has bailed out and there's no any action in conclusion the district court did not air and summarily denying the petition it was denied without prejudice should any of those jurisdictional issues have been cured then the petitioner could refile a petition demonstrating that them like to raise a couple points very briefly just getting to something i was about to mention in response to judge callahan's questions the motions panel had served by i had a question as to whether ms min had been given proper notice it you have a copy of that order maybe make a copy and like to see it again refresh my memory which or which you're either lying about and one of them i was