not disavowed his appeal and therefore he has standing his is conviction is at issue in this case and i have been appointed under the statute to represent him for purposes of the automatic appeal below order of vindicate his right to that automatic appeal and low i had no authority from him to waive that right i thought the only cases that we could hear that speaking of our jurisdiction are nine fifty g commission review is that would be your bringing in front of us findings and sentence of the court of military commission refuse that which you bring in front of us yes your honor they have so they have made a final decision that they presumably the waiver was affected so it's not unlike any other case that is before this court where the cases docketed for purposes of determining the effectiveness of the waiver and whether review to the  finding again the finding is that there was no appeal and being that he waived his right or for whatever reason the court determined that it based its entire decision on that and that's a final judgment but s decision with respect to whether you're authorized to represent the petitioner even if that's wrong you don't have a final judgment here that's the problem is and he would authorize you to represent him or if he had some other warrior he could still bring his appeal right that's this that hasn't been precluded here am i wrong about that presumably because someone then where is the final judge the final judgment is that's a problem that's that's what's bothering me the court's decision below is focused on that the chief defense counsels of forty two point me for purposes of collateral litigation because there is no appeal pending as expressed in in the deciding that they've made the decision that they will not be doing ninety f review below that's the final decision that's before year in other words they rejected his appeal issued in february i believe it was of twenty fourteen i think it's a page eighty five of the government stuff one where the court seems you are recognize that as an alternative remedy i did ask them to docket the case for  limitations of the government i've had placed on me i had been unable to establish communication nothing was sufficient and absent and i had explained to them in my initial brief that travel as i read the response to the show cause whatever it is it's basically that you know the people's automatic where's the where's the response to the corporate government saying why hasn't either a letter or phone calls yes i did your honor and what happened there was no response but i don't have an address or my i don't have a phone number for him i went through intermediaries and all the information i had in the case file nothing was the fishing and when i would remind the court that that he's under the subject of monitoring by the sudanese government which is a reprieve ery repressive regime our office is subject to monitoring and communications to sudan are subject to monitoring so i can't even be certain that he received my letter or that the intermediaries made contact with them so i've been frustrated ever angle and the fact that i can't travel which is the normal normal counsel to do to try and consult with a client has made this case what it is that's how it started out and the reason the government denied my travel was is that they deemed the waiver to be effective and we know now in the hicks case the c m c are is held differently that the waiver because it wasn't filed within ten days and hicks same situation is here that the appeal should have gone forward and there's nothing in the statute that says that hicks and cozy should be treated differently and so i want companies do you have that if you were to travel he would contact with the all i can relate to the court is i've been assured by the sudanese government that they will arrange a meeting if i can get to  they will arrange an interview why don't instead of promising a ranging interview they promised to put him on the phone that i can certainly if they can produce him to meet with you face to face they can produce him to be on the phone with us i did ask them for below happens whether or not you ever talk to your client because congress has mandated that review will happen and if this this quirk or look seems yars written into a requirement that cozy come forward into some a permanent act to ensure that knife if e g that provides for this court's jurisdiction over military commission cases requires as a jurisdictional prerequisite in the government's view a timely and authorized petition for review without such a petition for review there is no jurisdiction under ny and so the government's initial argument regarding the whether the petition is was authorized goes to whether there's no final judgment i did see that it does seem to be to us to be the most straightforward resolution of the case and that the ground relied on the love in that  i don't think there's any dispute that the as a matter of fact that the petition hasn't been authorized by the manner sorry just on this looking at the statute here what do you nine five nine fifty ci twenty nine but you could do you want to say anything else you can take on the use of the other interesting issue which is no fun yes i think i'd like to agree with the view that was express maybe start over defense counsel relies on the automatic appeal provisions related to the jurisdiction of the c m c are the court below but those provisions do not apply to this court for a second there is no automatic appeal to this or this court's jurisdiction again this requires the timely filing of an authorised petition in order to invoke whether congress could provide for an automatic appeal this court i agree on or with you would at least raise a difficult question our argument is that congress hasn't done that and so the court doesn't need to  necessarily address the constitutional issue because congress hasn't really has required the affirmative act of the filing of a petition within the twenty day time limit or what would you do what's your strongest argument that there's no final judgment and i didn't hear that could you say that again i national for your strongest argument that there is no final judgment before us our argument is that there is no final judgment as affirmed or set aside by the c m c construe the decision below as not having reach the question of affirming or setting aside the military commission's judgment because it determined that the use of so is there a finality element to the decision below it's just open the possibility that the petitioner could still authorize defense counsel or other counsel to pursue remedies and that court resolve only the question that that's what i was going to ask you are you representing to us that that's the case correct if he so that's your answer to the church with this question right that why there's no kind of judgment that the only decision here is is a resolution of the question of whether captain mccormack is offer that up that's the way we statute mandated review and in the alternative to bring the case to that work from jim do the ny fifty review it didn't do either and that's the final judgment that's here as far as