know three cases on for argument this afternoon we'll hear the first two cases and then take a fifteen minute recess and reconstitute the panel before hearing the third case papers correct at least that's what the order were cited as the government's position was that the this court did not have jurisdiction over the field and then that position was accepted by the court so appeal she declined to do so and so i thought that iran question of whether judge bardsley had jurisdiction to address the question and so the question raised in cygnus as i understand it cases one that we would reach only if at all in serious question if at all but only after reaching your stiction question right yes that's correct so it maybe isn't so surprising that the government would have focused on the jurisdictional question as opposed to the merits of the neglect issue that's the thing that i am most troubled by is that i'm not sure who in the government's view did have jurisdiction over the case on december let's say eight the government argued that this court didn't have jurisdiction and hence obtained the dismissal of the appeal but it's now arguing that the trial court also didn't have jurisdiction who  did let me just clarify the government was on that but the court didn't have jurisdiction over the matter on number thirteen to determine whether or not in my jurisdiction over american rights but we always have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction but that's different from saying we have jurisdiction over the appeal in the sense that as we ultimately determine we didn't we didn't have jurisdiction to decide the merits of the appeal it seems to me difficult to say that this court at the same time didn't have jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal but that at the same time the trial court also lacks jurisdiction well the principle of grace as we fight the great thing are in our ford to the district court the district court denies it then i file a notice of appeal from the continuance denial which is clearly not appealable but i filed a notice anyway and i get my continuance because by virtue of my filing that pleading the district court  lacks jurisdiction to proceed say with the trial is that your position i'm not sure i came across well let me try to get the following hypothetical you're getting ready for a trial and you're in in deep trouble because you've got a you need about a week to prepare to finish it preparation for trial so you file for a continuance with the district judge district judge says no we're going to trial tomorrow you say what am i going to do and so you file a notice the denial of the continuance motion with the court of appeals and by virtue of your position as i understand it which is any notice of appeal no matter how frivolous or how much it is taken from a non appealable water any defect in the notice deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed in that case therefore you get your continued because the trial court hasn't got jurisdiction until the court of appeals gets around to dismissing the appeal and that that doesn't strike me as being a very  good rule is that what you're doing you say the answer to that question is yes that's just too bad or what you want because the question in this case is whether it has to do with a tiny bit they have to let  of an appeal from and on appeal if you are such as my continuance did not we would issue an order to show cause as to why the appeal should be dismissed and there would be a proceeding and presumably would be dismissed at the end of that proceeding why do you think the ruby at the time if the court determined that out back that the court in international trade improperly decided to act the time that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and certainly it would now on time that quoting an untimely or substantively deficient notice of appeal does not deprive district court of jurisdiction so i took that to be hornbook law your you think that moore is wrong on that as well as all of the cases cited  not think that reasoning is persuasive of those of those other cases given that the notice of appeal has this jurisdictional significance and given that this court must decide its own jurisdiction and to decide the cases the other way that's the district court  this is in the position of determining this court's jurisdiction which is inappropriate for instance where there might be a factual dispute about when the notice of appeal was received where there might be a dispute about what is the appropriate deadline to apply because it's the appeal they do say if you there are other types of defects or of a time frivolous appeal then a district court really takes its chance on deciding whether or not he has jurisdiction in th this court must decide it's its own jurisdiction must be in it and while it's doing so the trial court must be the best it of jurisdiction to to determine that i would also like to address briefly one of the cases that was cited by guil claims did go ahead and rule on the motion to extend time while even though it was of appeal had been filed we just wanted to make it clear that this court and never had an opportunity to opine on that and did not determine that that was factors the most important factor from the case law is fault and we are certainly conceive of the other three factors are not present here however felt clearly lives with with gilda in this matter that it is incumbent upon counsel to understand the procedures for each filing in to carry them out properly and the case law is clear that misunderstanding of the rules or ignorance of the rules or a mistake and in applying them in understanding the rules or interpret in the rules three of us and are probably much more comfortable navigating your way around web sites and so forth but if i understand what happened here is that your sister had triggered someone on his behalf when into the website did everything they needed to do indicate an intention to appeal and only left off with the last page to click the box that said confirmed or something like that that sort of a second layer of confirming that you intend to do i've certainly done that myself and it's just something that those of us who may not be as comfortable with the with web site filings or the actions of any sort it seems to me could easily procedures work and requires counsel to go through training to to comport with their procedures and therefore in their court reading the rules by administrative order therefore counsel should know how to to operate the system and is required to do so in fact the administrator or states clearly that the file is not complete until confirmation of her is file is received and no confirmation was received very well i think we have your case thank you and we thank both c