prisoner would be entitled to this day what is wrong with that statement and i mean really what what what do you believe distinguishes mr yeoman from every other confuse pro then a few weeks later in pace they gave an example of good cause being reasonable confusion as to state issues now granted and pace they were talking about filing deadlines with regard to the state court but that's just an example there was not limiting or exclusive here your means confusion his recent confusion is somewhat explained in two parts your honor first as to his first regarding his state remedies his reinstateme take exception to that comment ok ok can i just say you know if the supreme court in rheims had written an opinion in which it had said every time a petition is presented that's a mixed petition with some claims that are exhausted and others that are the federal district court is instructed to stay until whatever exhaustion remains possible in the state court has happened then you would win you know because it would just be a nice clean rule but of course why have a nice clean rule that's not what the supreme court did they have something instead they say that there needs to be kind of a valid reason for this kind of state which is what gets us into the trouble here about the possibility that however mistaken you know mr yeoman was you know trying to structure the system so that he able to do this now he certainly could still go back to state court the only thing that's going to pays the good for standard is flexible and it should be looked after was stickley but who wouldn't have good cause i mean you know honestly if you you probably don't you hate to use all the time i'm going to guess it's complicated think of these people in prison i mean they're all so confused about it we've certainly seen it over the years but yet we hold them to waver we hold them to procedural default we hold them to statutes of limitations we hold them to exhaustion requirements there are a lengthy list of things and we don't care that they didn't get it we hold them to it and you're on a route out advocating for a bright line rule here what we have an issue with is that just  so that support that statement including some some circuit courts as well but the key here your honor is and it shouldn't be overlooked that the district court conceded that you met the other two requirements that his claims are not and that there was no intentional the way for dilatory litigation they were defaulted they would have been dismissed out of hand by the wisconsin courts claims of procedural default you've got it you've got to file his conviction motion in wisconsin in tandem with your direct appeal district courts conclusion that these claims were plainly meritless that they were because they were going nowhere on the state's court so a state would have been futile in this case well your honor i think the plainly meritless claims goes to his own exhaustive claims i think that's what we stand that's what i'm referring to as an exhausted claims would have been dismissed instant caney as me on grounds of procedural default by the wisconsin courts because you have to combine a post conviction motion with your direct appeal under wisconsin criminal procedure i'm sorry i think your honor it in this context as judge would point out earlier he can go file a nine seven four petition in fact i've been in contact with him and he's working his way through trying to find counsel in the process of filing that that has to be combined with a direct appeal and i think is my understanding is that he can still file a nine seven four petition because of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim he has that gets him around the procedural default ineffective assistance of trial counsel yes you know that claim has to be combined with the direct appeal your honor i but the real be the real pressure point in this case is whether he had good cause for failure to exhaust point that was decisive for the district court was that he did not have good cause for the failure to exhaust he made as judge rove now has indicated a strategic decision to try to split his claims and that's on him remedies and his just ability to understand that and i agree it is a fine line as far as not claiming ignorance of the law is our reason and we're not advocating that your honor i think looking at everything holistic stay and discretion to think that this is just not one of the cases where the stays there you know one seems to me to have been rather confused about what he was supposed to do with the state appellate remedies  and going back and forth and you know putting things in taking things out and you know that they are it's a big mess that he never actually sits down and just gives the state court the package of things that it needs and you're absolutely right your honor that the attempt to remedy that was in his amended he views petition he write he realized that the successor to the successive petition issue  was looming so he wanted to make sure that these claims were filed with the federal court now you know one thing that we address in our reply brief that i want to briefly touch on before my time runs out is granting this modest request to press the pause  one reducing the delay in the execution of federal or state not just going to trial as you know as to the first humans are not capital defendant he's in the midst of a sentence there's no delay so that first concern is completely moot as far as the second concern encouraging the petitioners to seek relief from state court first before the federal courts were asking for that human attempted to raise these claims before i would be it incorrectly in the context of a second motion for reconsideration so are to again press the pause button let him go back down to the state court make these arguments which are not hidden they're not unknown and then come back up for federal review ok thank you very much thank you quote unquote limited circumstances and this is not one of them just you can you tell me what they are i mean i find this murky at best well this case it involves the first factor the rinds test the good c right and what do you what is good cause mean certainly giving the state the opportunity even if it's a short round trip as judge sykes is suggesting giving the state courts the opportunity to exercise whatever discretion they may have over you know later you know ineffectiveness of counsel or whatever they may have it's up to federal court to tell the state courts what they can and can't do well i don't mind the good cause language is that a petition or a must show good cause the chamber's the good clause is there good cause for his failure to exhaust state what would be i mean if you were illiterate or if the prison was on shutdown or lockdown or what would be give me an example of where you would think good cards exist i think maybe an example would be industry yeomans case dippy did not intentionally try with the district court t petition on his exhausted claims first then he will be represented on his own exhausted claims so he made a strategic decision thinking that if the court granted his petition on his  exhaust the claims then he would have counsel for his and exhausted claims and go back and write which seems like a colossal error of law news certainly is proof positive that he doesn't have any idea how this whole system works i mean i would agree  steroids are barred because of his his intentional acts of you know not filing his unexhausted claims first and state court and so i think this court doesn't have to look any further than ryan freel whether or in this court counsel and i think if the federal court first addresses my exhausted claims then i will of counsel and go back with counsel and then twenty four zero six claims so i think maybe that would be a start would would you just petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust all of its claims and whether his claims were plainly meritless and so basically just send it back and the district court was there to decide it when this case the district court already did decide whether there was good cause the harm i think in the granting of his petition for a state i know my opponent said just press the pause button but if you do that you basically do excuse his purposeful intent and not exhausting his exhausted claims you would not give any other petitioners incentive to where you could so you excuse his mistake too i mean i understand your phrasing and then it would also go hypothetically i don't at that was his that if that was his decision and he found that there was good cause for his billiard to exist i don't think i would be here i want to touch on just briefly the fact that the second reason demonstrated good cause the denial of the stay results in young men's forever a loss of federal review at a minimum that again adds to the holistic view of what the good cause is he loses this forever the supreme court under connecticut recognize that this was an enormous issue that should be carefully looked at and second again to the second point of the determined the petitioner hadn't really even set forth and really gave a detail as far as what he was going to go back down to the state court on i was a little unclear again perspective claims on claims that had not already been in the pipeline and nine seventy four type