was very unfortunate in this case because he did have a very for lack of a better word and his words a toxic relationship and a conflict with his state public defender  overlooked it but it was never taint and actually the transcript was only transcribed until unfortunately for him until i was appointed to the case which was way after a lot of things that had already happened he would first of all i would like to i'm sure that the court is aware but i'd like to remind the court that mr ramirez threw myself filed a motion to made in him his motion to him and which was denied in his opening brief and so when i filed the opening brief i actually included those arguments which words amplif by the fact that you know that we have the transcript by then and actually we have these two certified issues where in your blueberry do you actually raise issues related to the sort of issue an awful lot of time focused on issues that have not been certified feel and i actually i raised it starting at page thirty seven in my brief i talked about whether or not  in that case well and there's a little bit different he had counsel and the question was the tension with counsel has quite a long colloquy with the with the trial judge on mess so would you focus on whether at the end of that they were the sufficient record for the judge to make a decision that they would go forward i think th a sufficient record to show that there was a conflict between him and his counsel and that if there was such a conflict that he was forced to go through the preliminary hearing and thereafter without the benefit of counsel issue in the hearing regarding the conflict and the court of appeals found in that case that it could not affirm and it would not affirm the district court's decision to deny the petition when the district court had not review a preliminary hearing and the court says not today when you get a superior court if you go to a superior court make your motion was that much in renewed he asked again and what happened there well he says the district the state court said i don't want to hear anything about the underlying facts of your case we're just going to talk about whether or not you want to representation represent yourself and he says well i can't go forward with this particular public defender and that and that state court records state court just completely shut  up they said we don't want to hear about the background because we don't want to hear about what happened do you want to represent yourself and actually the public defender time then forcing mr mr meters to represent himself actually in a very forceful words saying do you want to represent yourself or not and then the court said i don't want to hear about any of the press record do you want to represent yourself and mr minister that i don't have a government to argue that it was waived if if you can read the brief and understand the issues but i do think it's wholly however even if it's not me i do believe it was not presented to the truth to the district court the issue that is being resting on a procedural posture for all your arguments here and the court of appeal that is the response position regarding that pretty high stakes proposition i mean usually people saying this is our position am the there was never a question need to expand the scene way to include you know he is the issue that she actually did address opposing counsel dress in her free and i was presented with a twenty eight day letter about ten minutes ago in which i guess counsels are serving that the court could ruling for the district court to actually have to be reviewed and we did not address the issues because we believe the issue was jurisdictional it's not just a matter of waiver it's a traditional issue before this court that can't be considered this time let me just make sure i understand we certified for the defendant to be able to argue out of peel whether the denial of the credit motion it was an error and then we further certified what is standard of review tell the state how argue these cases but it just it seems to me that when we have a certified issue when it's raised even if you don't think it's raised appropriately enough that it really doesn't further the case one way or the other to stand hard on the procedural issue i mean that's a choice you can make but in doing that you deprive the quarter of the state's thinking on the substance of the appeal on behalf of the government as to whether if we thought there had been an error in the corrected decision whether we would look at that error under the harmless announce our most error analysis counsel the district court perfectly understood what the argument was ordered the government to have that transcript made which i did it's and explained by the government there it is but u defendant did not have to show prejudice in that case that if you was denied his right to represent himself that it was prejudice perceval and all he had to do was show that he was denied and and that the court