i think you're going to meet please the court on this appeal raises very narrow legal issue namely whether arkansas burglary as it existed say about the new statute but we don't need to worry about that because we need for better or for worse are required to deal with the old standards today and the old statute points clearly in the direction that this is not generic district court in arkansas based on the concessions of the government decided that the pre nine hundred ninety three statute was not generic birth now obviously you're not bound by what the district court is the standard of review now the government says well you know maybe there's a good argument here but under playing here it's not your type and therefore you don't get relief but this case since it's a post conviction case does the process decided everything in this case except for what is arkansas burglary and that's the issue for for this court to decide in this case correct does not distinguish the particular class that was used to qualify the defendant it also doesn't identify the particular statute under which he was convicted he refers to all of the all of the conviction of both of the conviction as residential burglaries and the defendant never raised a an argument or a claim about that point or any of the other points related to his qualification as a career ender so what that means is that the defendant has not presented the discussed this problem of the possibility of conflating the merits decision where a together with the procedural question of timeliness and first of all that problem is think clearly obviously limited because we would all agree that merely a mere incantation of a name johnson in a completely unrelated case would not make the claim to be one that was asserted under johnson but there's no there's no way of looking at this particular claim that brings you to the point where the residual cause comes into play and that that point also supports argument that the government has fender provision and both parties agreed to that at the time of sentencing but after curtis johnson davis conviction no longer hogtied so by the time of samuel johnson samuel johnson gets rid of the understand to be the primary claim is that it that his burglary conviction does not qualify as a generic burglary that is a claim that can be made under more recent cases and methods but the supreme court ma involved in process where the procedural that the attack on the residual clause in johnson actually has significance to the defendant and can be said to be the basis of the claim as a matter of fact regardless of what the district court did or did not say with respect to which closet was relying on at the time of sentencing here we don't we don't have any information suggesting that the district court was relying on so those that's a perfect fit there and there's no reason and that and it offers no reason to believe that the court ruled on any other basis and time has not provided another basis for determining that know what a lay person has to say doesn't count and the p s r i don't know where they came up with that because when you look at the actual arkansas law judgments which are in the record it's said record number six hyphen three the only offenses that he's charged with are burglary and the judgment of conviction in most cases burglary it does not say residential burglary which makes perfect sense because on the timeliness issue and i thought wow they should took a long time to agree that you're right and now this morning for a long time i thought they were telling you you were wrong but i think now they're finally telling you you're right on the time with this issue and it seems like you  have a defendant like this they meet the requirements of cause and prejudice and it's not just yesterday it was like about four thirty in the afternoon so i didn't have time to draft a twenty eight jade letter this court decided another published opinion done tony and i will rid of the belt it's only when you get rid of the suspenders that the defendant has got a chance of getting any sort of relief and that's why this case is timely and that's why in this case the defendant was able to