case which is an example of two government agencies ignoring their own rules of procedure and bulldozing over a private litigant and to be honest our country deserves better as stated by this panel in the case of grant and in this case procedural due process requires adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard one day's notice certainly does not comply with the necessary due process for seadrill safeguards and that's particularly true here in this particular case when mr hadley was seriously injured during the pendency of his extension that was granted by the federal aviation administration as the record will reveal mr hadley had broken both of his arms and his legs prior to the time that cause light of the injuries which i just described he had obtained in good faith an extension from the f a a judge garrity issued a ruling during the pendency have his extension judge guarantees decisional order took eight days to get from boulder colorado to ferndale where mr hadley resides according to the n t s b has rules mr hadley had only one business day in which to respond to the decisional order and file an appeal i believe that it is per se a violation of due process to indicate that it per se looked at a pro se litigant has only one business day in which to violin appeal that seems to be per se a violation of due process in my view one of two rules must apply either there is an additional five days for mailing which is less than the actual time it took in order for the mail to get to ferndale california or alternatively the time period should run from the date of actual receipt mr hadley received the decision of the order on the twelfth of september although it was mailed from denver on the fourth of september he then had the weekend from friday the twelfth until monday the fifteenth according to the n t s b has rules in which to secure an extension of time or alternatively to appeal from judge parities order i don't believe that that complies with the necessary due process requirements a reasonable rule would be pursuant to fourteen c f r section thirteen to eleven d that you had five extra days for mailing which the government contends does not apply in this case but i believe should apply in this case or alternatively the time period runs from actual receipt under either of those rules when mr newman sent the notice of appeal on the twenty second  brief states at page ten quote on september twenty second mr newman sent a letter to judge garrity in washington d c requesting reconsideration of the judge's motion on the ruling for summary judgment mr newman added if reconsideration is not granted then this letter should serve as a notice of appeal the government has acknowledged that the n t s b received that document and the n t s b is relying upon the fact that it lost the document in order to deny the appeal so not only did judge garrity issue his decision to order during the pendency of an extension and not only did mr pavley have a serious injury where he could neither right nor walk but the f a a acknowledges that the n t s b received the appeal in a timely fashion order was issued at a time when the extension applied can the n t s b ignore the receipt of a timely delivered appeal in order to deny the appeal and in order to issue dismissal of that appeal i believe that the whole case comes down to the fact that the n t s b is relying upon its own loss of the crucial document in order to that to deny this appeal and the record as evidence as is very clear that both the f a a and the n t s b are completely confused and befuddled by their own rules the n t s b delivered numerous inconsistent decisions which were internally inconsistent they constantly advised mr hadley that there were different deadlines when he responded in january that he wanted a further extension of time they told him that the matter was closed then in february they told for the n t s b to find that mr newton the one that you're saying that they lost is that the september twenty second document that your client claims he faxed that mr newman faxed that's correct and which mr berry admits on page ten of his brief second when in reality the n t s b itself suggests that it didn't receive this letter in till december eighteenth but i think more importantly in connection with this letter this this letter doesn't represent an extension of time at the other side of it that obviously we get things for people file to file appeals ten years later or something along those lines i mean it doesn't fall in to that type of category and he obviously i don't think said he was proud to say he had a hospitalization and you know why doesn't why doesn't that satisfy good cause to suspend the application of the n t as peace policy of dismissing untimely appeal concerned judge garrity issued his decision on september fourth two thousand and three mr headley had until september fifteenth which was a monday to file a notice of appeal or to request it in extension of time to file a notice of appeal on september twenty second well after that deadline period he filed a notice of appeal from judge perry's decision right so when you're talking well after we're talking how many days seven days ok he could've called i think we've we've established that that he did have other things wrong with him so i'm assuming there would be some things let's assume that he were in a coma and woke at six days later i would that be good cause if he were in a coma and then woke up after a period of time well it's difficult for me to speculate what the n t s b would actually characterize as good cause presumably that would be good calls if he were in a coma however obviously he was not in a coma he had gotten into a motorcycle accident on september three on september ninth he with route he was released from the hospital and he had that until september twelfth to do one of two things both of which were but mr newman who apparently represented him in the past and also had done favors for him to execute that function to call up either the to either call to the n t s b and request an extension of time or to do that t answer your question if the n t s b had actually time had actually received this document on september twenty second i think the notice of appeal still would have been dismissed and i can explain why number one the notice of appeal would have been seven days late and  n the the consistent application of the board's rules that is the strict application of its persecutor all requirements which has been upheld by this court and union flights and gilbert to court i mean the board would have he does mention that he was in a motorcycle accident that is mr newman mentions that mr hadley was in a motorcycle accident but there is no linkage between the motorcycle accident and we didn't know what the severity of that motorcycle accident is by virtue of that mr hadley failed to preserve this particular argument for this court and i believe that this court lacks jurisdiction over it as tell me the reasons and in terms have that obviously appellants counsel has argued that you know it should it applies to enforcement actions that are taken in a separate tribunals that is a tribunal before the f a a administrator this is an entirely separate matter this is a case where the operation of an aircraft to the point of feel exhausted and he had to make an off airport landing at a farm and then he used automotive fuel to to transport that aircraft back to the nearest airpor exception there was an amended order by judge garrity on the ninth of september there was an initial ruling on the fourth of september and then he recognized that there were errata and he issued a supplemental order on the ninth of september i don't think it's reasonable for the days per mailing would be the twenty fourth and the appeal was on the twenty second or alternatively i believe that it should run from the date of actual receipt under the f b i s position if mr hadley had reason of his mailing thing you're talking about no one's ever business day and i believe that this statute is violative of due process on its face because under their interpretation if he had never received notice he still would have lost his right to an appeal are there anything to question