abraham was looking at multiple counts that were carrying life sentence and he also thing is similar counts in another case that was being tried simultaneously in another courtroom by the saying district attorney he was right he represented himself in that case the case that however here if you look at the nevada supreme court opinion which is look at it you know are five o eight the now the supreme court here puts an artificial condition on for about us saying that lyons which is  and about a case in sharpening for help that the request to represent oneself is untimely if the request does not come early enough for a continuance and so what they've done here within about a supreme court has done here and said to mr that the supreme court states that rules of lock can be sufficiently clear for him even when they're in terms of a generalized standard rather than a bright line rule so you have the supreme court saying that timel that you can go beyond that and say and impose the timeliness component to that so long as you're not contrary to what florida is giving you well to adopt your position though we would have to tell them if they had a supreme court that even though the request came five days before the start of trying now and there have been several previous continuances supreme court law requires them to come to an opposite conclusion no i think i disagree first of all it's not like you're dealing with the what i would tell the fifth motion that he has filed at this time letting the court know letting this trial judge know i'm having issues here granted the first three motions that he's asking for his phrase those as motions to appear across day and motions for appointment of new counsel he withdraws a few of those what our position is that the first time that he actually here who isn't exactly artfully stating his position but within that motion there's a very clear discussion about forever he's saying my lawyer you know my lawyer is not doing what what i want he's not putting forth  twenty five or two twenty six of the excerpts that he really is looking to have somewhat more control over his counsel but he's not looking to go with no counsel at all well what i would say to that your honor is that in terms of looking substitution of counsel that's what his title is where he clearly cites for at that time it's heard twenty days later a calendar call you need to look at what the court is in the record in terms of what he's asking for and what it's all about it's very clear when you look at that where you have another public defender who is not mr abraham's counsel standing there and saying to the judge ok we've got this motion here he's talking about i really think it's important that you talk to him about the case this is all very sympathetic facts but under our standard you know in a boy you tube where was the clear violation of federal days before trial so how do you write our opinion i write your opinion in that the nevada supreme court got it wrong in a number of ways they sat and they only dealt with a motion to proceed pro se which is filed  before counsel say there that you can't have that mr abraham because you asked for a continuance that's not that's contrary to an unreasonable application of the maddest supreme court law not entitle him to proceed for other because there's absolutely no just for a number of reasons there's no discussion there that mr abraham had a reasonable justification for the continuance this court has said that you need to show that you need to show that he had that and talk about whether or not he had a reasonable of town witnesses that are coming in the case has been continued a number of times the case was never continued due to mr abraham's fault it was continuing to court yard courtrooms not being available and witness the problems of the state  have the and the other issue here is that final request that he makes the day before trial the day before trial this is a personal versus pain situation where you've got the trial court saying the day before trial in terms of the motion to proceed pro se he denies that he denies that because he says it's not timely that's improper but then you have got another request and this court the nevada's different court erred in doing good morning your honor so my name's dennis wilson hearing from the attorney general's office and behalf of the respondent in this case as the federal district court held the nevada supreme court ruling was not contrary true nor case baker and adopt people versus wyndham so that is the standard that they apply which is thread under the supreme court case law fred requires in order for a defendant to preserve his right to represent later a motion was filed on the nineteenth that was first brought to the court's attention at the calendar call five days later on the twenty fourth the court did not rule on it at that time but did indicate that he was inclined not to grant it five days later he heard the motion and did grant the motion but he ruled that he would not grant the defendant the defendant a continu defendant files a motion weeks before trial or well before trial that that motion is timely and that difference between the the change in the ninth circuit court rule was discus taylor has been has been cited too so there's no there's no doubt that the motion was not timely made he had plenty of time to make that motion he came in on that the number nine hundred motion five days before trial as i indicated and he wasn't at that hearing so they continued to the trial date additionally and this particular case the trial court plant of the motion was made for the same tactic and another criminal case the court was apparently concerned about that there were additionally out of state witnesses in order for him to prove that this is a good faith attempt to represent himself waiting until ten days before trial to make this motion when he had filed numerous motions probably the area of twenty motions between the time of his arraignment and the time of trial shows that he clearly can file that motion earlier and he didn't which is in evidence that he was not a good faith attempt to represent himself that was an attempt to delay the trial now this with regard to the other claims that are made by the appellant there really only was one motion that was made the november one thousand was the one that was filed morning of trial and the end of the briefs first issue that was addressed by the district court and that was raised in the  was that there were two motions made for him to represent himself one was march twenty second one thousand nine hundred ninety three and the other one was november nineteenth one thousand nine hundred ninety three the trial court but based on that your honors i'd ask you to uphold the federal district court's ruling that the