argument by knowing something that's obvious from the three things and that is that the respondent has conceded that it was error for the california courts and the federal  ineffective assistance of counsel claim under dixon so we already have a concession that this case needs to go back down to district court for proceedings on the merits of that claim and so i  think that's an important reminder as we talk about the rest of the cases and i did distribute at the beginning of arguments a case called below mark which was decided yesterday by the ninth circuit and wanted to spend a second particular california procedural bar is inadequate it's enough for when the respondent was asserts that procedural bar then to put in an issue it's enough for the petitioner to just simply say i challenge the adequacy of that procedural bar if there's already united circuit holding saying that at some point in time it was inadequate the petitioner need only say i'm but the field what yesterday's decision says it's a hell of a certain point in time this bar was inadequate then responded you must come up with proof that it's now it's become adequate in the time since then the dixon bart independent of federal law i set out in my brief thing and i would like to just summarize quickly my argument that it's not that it is that it's still dependent on federal law but i think the easy decision to just taste is that california supreme court started multiple procedural bars it didn't say which applied to which everyone agrees that applied one of them in error so that's like the simplest narrow to in my little system but anyway so then we move on to the claim that my plea was not voluntary because i i thought i had an agreement with the judge that if i  so i hope that clarifies my view at least i do you only have seventeen seconds left so i would like to know reserve for a little time i have for the final thank you constitutes that substantial delay has not been clarified by the california supreme court and therefore this is not an adequate bar also this that is unlike the dixon bar that does not have that case that was decided yesterday made a term of allegation regarding adequacy of the bar that that kings basically can be distinguished from this case where the respondent excuse me the petitioner made no s to shifting the burden back to the respondent on that issue and then goes on to let the state court then determine whether procedural bar is a issue that's making an independent of a federal law determination so i do believe that and also this was recognized somewhat in the now with respect to the adequacy i think i dress part of that with respect to the recent case that came out yesterday mark with respect to the petitioner in this case was on full fair notice with respect to the thirteen other dixon bar as a defense by the respond with respect to the issue regarding the look through doctrine and whether the edict from bar was properly applied by the district court in this case once you get past the independence and the adequacy and i believe in with the diction bar has been applied to you and said that the dixon bar plies and then the permanence of that by the california supreme court in summary denial with a citation to dixon although include other citations there is no question that that shows that the state court decision was based on state law and not intertwined with any federal law determination direct the court to the fact that in vanity mueller mueller when this court set forth to test for the current burning shifting and actually record recognize that many petitioners in these cases knew pro se so that's something that was already prior strike and also the continuance of the sentencing both of these issues in order due to rise to any type of constitutional violation would it is very unusual and only in extraordinary circumstances regard to the issue of the independence of the dixon bar and its fate mentioned footnote thirty four of robinson i actually rely heavily on not myself it's said we in the future  state's claim of the bar was too general to shift the burden back to the state well your honor the first officer is i don't even think we have to go there because of the independence issue and the issue of the ambiguity of the california supreme court's order but if we do go there i think given that the answer was so general the answer itself which is the pleading it's not that memorandum of point california supreme court's reason to deny the petition but when it came to the paragraph where it asserted procedural bar it just said procedurally barred it didn't say it didn't clarify which bar of the four of the california supreme court reli