had long hair nevertheless he continued to exercise diligence in challenging his conviction and he filed his route thirty two and twenty two for petition pro se in both cases he  be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that it was unreasonable this course that when the petitioner latency missa did mines because he was abandoned by his lawyer a district court abuses its discretion when it judge not only in the in the initial petition but also then in response to the state's objection and then even more pointedly in response to the magistrate's order to show cause seems like there were three this court basically said well mr williams was given an opportunity to respond didn't file anything so under those circumstances it's ok for us for the district court to have ignored the issues that he did raise in the report the recommendation that when that happens your is it your contention and i really want you to be careful here is it your contention that your client was not similarly directed by the magistrate judge in order to have cause to address the question of time he was directed and he did comply with that order the the order to show called with documents sixteen and mr patrick filed in documents clear in document seventeen does does does the word that the words the phrase equitable tolling show up he does not use the phrase equitable telling but he does say that the reason why his petition was he did specifically addresses the court and how motion in his response in the show to the show cause order when he was directed to and then it is very different from what happened in the case is that the document in which  he was discussing this case called martinez the supreme court yes your honor he raises martinez i think in all of his filings he raised in the document seventeen he also raised when he before the report and recommendation that he basically is trying to alert the court to the fact that his route thirty two lawyer screwed up his case and that's the reason why everything he found after that point  mandatory did no review of the petitioners timely objections to the report and recommendations and mr patches he had found time objections in this case and stokes this court specifically pointed out that one of the things that the district court did when they affirmed the dismissal of that petition was they did it in a single word order that just approved the report and recommendation and what happened in this case isn't too far zombie correctness to the state court the trial and the appellate court findings of fact and that difference is also owed to the state court legal conclusions unless there is a showing  clear and convincing evidence that they are either based on an unreasonable determination of the facts of the case or an unreasonable application of federal law  talk about the fact that his lawyer lied to him that the lawyer lied to is why about filing the petition and he he lied and actually told him that he had filed the petition and he would send them a copy of it  deferential standard to well i think you think the court can ignore the fact that the reason why his federal petition was late is because of everything that happened prior to him filing the federal petition and also the difference in between chavez and mr patrick's case is that this court also found in that case that the petitioner had not sufficiently laid eithe trying to do everything that he knew that he could do to get both the state and his federal petition filed on time both of those situations where you have petitioners that i learned the court to the fact that they missed a filing deadline because they were abandoned by the lawyer the case is ok this needs to go back and you need to have an evidentiary hearing on whether this was three times he had the opportunity in federal court to raise that he's known about that issue for many many years he also was started throughout the state court he talked about this and so he understood the difference between the two he also knew about it was aware of it and  he had an opportunity and it was many years ago when the same english and i'm speaking hypothetically but for the sake of argument if he were to be allowed to have a hearing you or send it back to the district court he's given no indication that he has any this petition before this court that he contacted the attorney numerous times well we don't know he didn't argue specific enough facts below he never made an argument in state court well when did you call him how often did you call  pennington for holding the petitioners rule thirty two petition from two thousand and five to two thousand and nine in which he was paid to file follow the will within the ambit of the narrow exception to the general rule from our perspective is that you have a petitioner and williams who doesn't respond to the court at all he basically just ignores the court's so called order whereas you have mr patrick who complies with the court's show cause order and