amendment one improvement of a judgment or a sentence and so here we have the second cause of what a motion to stay is and that requires that the trial judge is has to consider whether or not there is a motion to stay the capacity of the motion is only to defer the execution of the sentence it's not to reexamine it is granted that the judge in deciding to grant the motion to stay has to form an opinion which should form an opinion as to what he thinks the likelihood of success on the on the merits of years but he doesn't have any power at that point on that there is no case law that says that a motion to stay automatically told that but in the context of duping cases it does because it was necessarily a part of the appeal and at the time that they motioned to stay was filed they still weren't even hearing motion by there not those two years would be told and gave no regard to the seven months that was following after the motion for new trial was decided and big consideration was denied so in both of those cases and i two thousand and twelve one there it was remanded back to the district court and the two thousand  rather than in two thousand and seven when the when the petition was filed maybe i'm missing your point  days between when it wasn't told but he was pursuing his very diligently all along his filed every motion and invention motion that you could in massachusetts when it comes to these specific ashes and i don't think that he had a lack of diligence and there was no are i will recognize that the any duke in episode is extraordinary circumstances and at the time that this case was being litigated there were a lot of unanswered questions i would like to point out that in this case this petitioner did receive the relief requested as to his drug charges they were not all crossed and they were just a mess the only charges before this court and this current he this petition are the gun charges so i'd like to just go through the timeline with you your honor to you can understand what was happening commonwealth the scott was decided march fifth two thousand and fourteen ok and this petitioners conviction assuming that the motion to stay execution of sentence to all what happened here is they filed it on february twenty first thirty nine days pas and then they filed their motion for new trial i may fifth so even if you use that time for the motions to execution a sentence it's still not timely filed make a moat so this court has been clear about and a motion for a new trial tolls the statute of limitations and our argument is that the motion from stay the execution of sentence does not hold the statute of limitations because it's not collateral review yes it is collateral limitations and what properly tolls the statute of limitations so we're saying that under twenty to forty four d to do this type of collateral review that motion to stay filing many different kinds of things and this particular defendant chose to file a motion for a stay of execution of sentence in for he is purposes that does not tall the statute of limitations because it does not meet the definition of you're out of the district court said even assuming that the motion to say execution of sentence that time around march twenty seventh three may i'm sorry i missed that my date even assuming the time f february to march twenty seventh they still waited two rond to file a motion for a new trial is that because the time between march twenty seventh and the filing of the motion for new trial in may when i did to the eleven trial because the appeals court didn't decide that issue that's when he returned related his issue until a