ninety seven ninety eight ok subsequent proceedings what has simply been reinstatement proceedings which seems to have been declared an invalid by this court so i'm talking about the ones that were before the immigration judge and the this understanding the record you're you're you're asking us to look back beyond the most recent deportation and reentry in order to collaterally attack the original  and at some point when there is the rule of finality apply and we simply say it's too late i believe the rule finale apply when the appellant would have had an adequate opportunity to be heard on the constitutionality of the original proceeding because the subsequent proceedings relied upon the initial but under your theory if he had been deported and re entered into corded and re entered thirty times or a fifteen year period he could go back and collaterally attack in the thirty first three entries with the original deportation and what's your best case t support that proposition you can imagine a case where a person was the first thing and states may be looking for a case citation not a hypothetical i'm trying to figure out what the law is because what strikes me as odd about this i think the court that would be a defense to the most recent deportation would it not because if he's reported on the theory that he was an illegal alien who had reentered without permission of the attorney general  need and very for he would have a defense no matter how many times he'd been deported it seems to me this is a different situation very no question that he is an illegal alien and i guess what and that same counsel again advised him that he had no valid defense it was not until he consulted with another attorney which was myself that he became aware for the first time that he could challenged the original order immigration appeals order and had he challenged it he would have prevailed in light of this discourse decision i'm gonna put on the u s supreme court decision what do we do with the district court finding that after abandoned his appeal with his attorney however the record the lies that he had continued to make payments to his attorney the attorney testified that he was satisfied with the progress of his payments turning to testify that he still considered himself to be the of turning the attorney acknowledged that he alone received the decision of the board of immigration appeals the attorney did not dispute that on november third anything further could be done and the attorney did not dispute that he told them that nothing further could be done and so even no matter what no matter what the findings were the attorney at that moment even your client pleaded guilty and we feel you not two thirteen twenty six well that wasn't to be the end of the whole matter now your honor there was an appeal waiver that was included in the guilty plea memorandum and however in however there has been no evidence or no discussion rule in regards to any appeal for a supervised release revocation so we would i would argue that that issue is even even though that there hasn't been appeal filed on it it has not been discussed brief or argued secondly the reply brief also makes a new argument for the first time in which the government was not able to respond to that new argument is arguing that his immigration counsel ineffective that was not that was not presented to the district court and it was not presented to the government or to the court in the appellants opening brief so we had asked that through our motion should we didn't dismiss that the that was my initial response when this when this was first filed with the court i had filed a motion to dismiss because there was an appellate waiver it was knowingly willingly and voluntarily made the pled guilty he the appellant did not try to withdraw his appeal or didn't even make a reference seven until the day of sentencing he pled guilty in october he showed up the day of syncing in december said i new attorney no motion was filed until several months later nearly six months later after his change of plea where he pled guilty was emotional with just a guilty plea ever filed we of course argued that at that time the he wade belak waive all of public rights when this case after the judge made his final decision in regards to the motions we stood up and reiterated the court your honor there is an appellate waiver and the judge reiterated that in fact had me read it into the record there was no objection made saying your honor we disagree with that that we are all we're going to appeal this case or at least people on the grounds of knowingly and willingly voluntarily basically the last word that was ever stated this individual came back into this country an illegal alien such as a felon in possession someone may be convicted of a crime of the felony and he may be finding that felony but during that time he cannot go out and possess a firearm if he sort of argument that his underlying deportation was improper unlawful the status at the time the he when he came back across the border was and he was an illegal alien is a crime of status such as an such as a felon in possession might be a case of first impression or not whether or not someone can collaterally attack this in the manner that they have i'd made a brief reference to two cases one coming out of the supreme court called windows and one of the ninth circuit on page twenty three at the top but the government's contention first and foremost he weighed all those pellet rights he's never checked his opening brief that it was not only willing or voluntarily he didn't even ever check this criminal attorney the guilty guilty plea the trial counsel who had advised that appellant to plead guilty submitted an affidavit saying that he never recognized any defense told the appellant that he had no defense and that evidence was not