i understand you've already briefs i basically have asserted that the district court below failed to undertake what this court ordered to do and examining new evidence in light of written statement and respect particularly about seeing the person described as a cone immediately come back into the bar after he started out as a cone was on short he's the one who started the fight in the bar over some women there's no dispute in the record about that  and failure to prove prove that cone on the vehicle used by the shooter all the witness testimony basically indicates the shooter tempted to flee the car and there was no proof that he was the owner of the car  basically you know the district court blood denied a certificate of people ability it's my position they did not and the court did not analyze the ineffective assistance claims that it was ordered to do of what she was presented it terms of the she's not sure as to who the shooter was we believe that the position of peleg here is that the district court sho tattooed all over the body and you know made of basically look like a gang member and of course he when he was in the bar was full of clothes for there was no reason to show that kennedy greeted th the perkins case which is how we got back here and we got here requires that you have new reliable evidence that shows it is more likely than not that no reasonable jury would have and the statements or the portions of witness statements that were never introduced into evidence as well right but how does that show that no reasonable juror would have convicted your client because there was already a do debate over who the shooter was and none of these established unequivocally who the shooter these things just create down or confusion they don't actually establish it  that you know reasonable juror would convict and do that well i think they do because you have to understand through the important it to know in the trial record that it's proved no disagree with a did shooter was immediately chased out of the bar and according to karr's ollie the shooter was grabbed right before he entered the driver's seat of the vehicle and i know the state of texas takes yariv it doesn't matter where there was a passenger or the driver but it that is very critical she she's very clear that the shooter's person that was in the driver's seat of the vehicle the chevy malibu and it's that person who the gun is snatched from by a person identified only in the record as cowboy whoever he is we don't know who he is he did testify but you basically when you look at that and you combined with cars all these testimony trial she got the color of the gun wrong she said it hurt written statement she said it was a black colored gun the record reflects it was a crime colored got when asked by grilled about that by defense counsel how did you get the color of the gun wrong if you're saying it was she says well she indicates when he grills or it was maybe too far away because it's bars very porting that i think there's an indication or may have been as many as one hundred people packed into this tiny bar so and then when she's grilled more about her testimony she says she's not sure that she can he pulled out that's what makes benito ponto his statement that the gun was pulled out of the pocket particularly credible because there was no pockets of either a comb or my client they could have pulled any jacket  mistake makes a lot out of the fact that my client doesn't say this daniel oh com well this isn't a maybe i used the wrong word in my brief time i recant it because usually it's used in a context where somebody with malicious motives makes an allegation against somebody and then later they say you know i said this about my stepdad it wasn't true because i hated him at the time this is this is a case what i'm arguing here is a case of mistaken identity cation and when we presented other with all these problems this is where i think why she came to the conclusion she made a mistake she's not going to tell you here this mr o'connor because if you made a mistake originally what does that mean it means you don't know who the shooter was and that's the problem but her testimony was had so many problems with it and not to mention where she dimensional congress she said he was outside the bar and then she mentioned you know he was in car and and in fact she testified that when my client was coming in the bar just as he was big thrown out of the bar a call that chronologically is not possible i'm talking about karr's oldest testable i'd like to talk about her testimony well no no i'm talking about as there are a lot of witnesses particular there were three people that grabbed the shooter from the driver store and that was one was  that was adrian sanchez he testified that he did testify about the shooter opening the driver's door and the shooter big or the person being pulled out he also indicated gun was pulled from the driver's door  no no testimony by him on a sparser hostess parsa he also testified that he in a statement he says he doesn't know who was sure was at trial he said it was my client then later he says no i don't know if it was your client so completely became a non issue as a witness in terms of so that only left karzai but what he was not question about was the fact that he said the shooter who he describes as the black strike sweater with coming back into the bar and pulling the gun that description black sweater fit o'connor it did not fit the scot who was wearing windbreaker that was exclamatory was not developed but the biggest problem the real problem overall is defense counsel did not develop that chronology the shooter was chased right to the driver side that he tried to peel out the car blocked him in three people grabbed him you're going to believe karr's only statement her testimony that she followed the shooter grabbing right forgot the driver's car you cannot conclude that it is my client you would have to conclude that it is a com and by the way i forgot to mention it admits to basically everything that occurs only says the shooter daniel khan admits to running out to his car he admits that he's the owner of the car he has that he starts it up and he tries to get out that he's  blockin he can't get away and then he's pulled out he calls it three guys and a fat lady and mr karzai was a long heavy set side pull pull him out of course he doesn't admit to the gun because he doesn't want to admit that he was the shooter but when you look at which how she described the shooter if it's exactly with what of course has canceled do you do you go agree that you have to establish this that and then not lie to the new evidence it must be more likely than not that no reason fabricated the story at the mother's behest yes in the court held that it best the new evidence shows a reasonable doubt could have been found to exist but it fails to satisfy the burden of selling the no reasonable jury could differently were somebody you know makes an allegation of step child against a step parent and then later recanted because you don't know if the step parent later made the child step child we can't you don't really know what the family dynamics are in that regard that's the actual innocence right you rely primarily on this affidavit from cargo is that right or is that incorrect i would say i rely a lot on it i would say primarily  walks right up he says the bulge in his pants as consistent as where the gun would have been concealed because there's no way to hold there was no jacket he says that the that whoever this shooter was that the shooter walk right up who does that if i says cone right up to him and shoots him without getting warning and then in the course he exits the bar but aren't we left with the swearing match between the new evidence and the evidence offered at trial to some extent like in the bosley case that these people around certain or have things that differ but there are other people the other evidence that would point to your client well again i look at a different buzzing what do you need to remember the jury was eleven one for not guilty in this case for two hours until i believe it was that prejudicial photo of my client without with tatted up without the clothing that changed it but i mean the jury with existing by evidence how did they get their photo after convict i'm wondering the same thing i don't i don't understand how you could go from that would to the extent that that's viewed as they had everything they need it whatever that was to go from an eleven one fo they didn't get anything leave i only i could think of they didn't like my client because i know that trials a lot of times prejudice comes into it i mean if you know jersey they think somebody is a gang member or bad you know jurors tend to sometimes i believe well those you know wasn't strong as it could have been but that's not that's not what he needs to show for actual innocence to overcome his own time that we consider the nato zone information as well  me well of course we the court considers all the other than c even if it would not necessarily be admissible but mr pantos testimony is problematic on both the actual innocence issue and on his actual strickland claim it's problematic on actual innocence because it's a quizzical it best he said and some of that is good for the petitioner something that's not and for the same reason it's seriously problematic if he could even get to the strickland claim for at least two reasons first that's exactly what his lawyer said about it he said i considered offering this to panto but ultimately i made a strategic decision because some of this testimony was good some of the wasn't so good and i just made the call i'm not going to call him as a witness the other reason to problem is that his counsel also testified in the state his seedings that any witness that got paul or the person she recognized and the other guy who i've never seen before he's the one that pulled the trigger downs about what happened after a gun went off in a crowded bar a scuffle ensued as people are trying to get away it law don't read the don't disagree with that of course it is but his burden is to show why the c c s application of that is either contrary to supreme court law or unreasonable and he hasn't even offered  and how it would have been favorable the testimony he's offering is equivocal with the best and as i've said in the context of actual innocence it simply doesn't contradict or undermine the critical testimony linking him to the killing of mr hol when there is no hearing conducted by the court no feels or by the by the truck or blow so i really don't think that there's anything you can say that we're bound to understand that we have to present evidence but there have if she wanted to say he was the shooter she could do so it's not saying about it my my response to that after everything i've looked at as i think she was angry that night there'd been a shooting in a bar i think she made statements hastily and out of anger in not being really known what she had seen i am a little bothered by the fact that she does no come to because that would be that he was a regular that would be a motive for her not to name him or identify him that evidence person that would shoot her mouth off and say something out of anger or frustration call it what you may and not really know what she said i that that that bar was very dark that night that i personally been there and all the testimony there were just tons of people in that bar and i think she didn't want to get her friend in trouble and i think she was mad at the other guy my client and i don't think she saw everything she really be can attest why they've more the nature of she's she's now the anger part is gone by she's now realizing i didn't see it and i'm going to be truthful i'm not sure who the shoe was thank you counsel me have your argument