appointed counsel your man for the proceedings now for getting into the nitty gritty the primary jurisdiction issues the parties to speak the standard of review the state of our view is factual findings clear air for the question of pr if there's a ret if he was brought up on a remark inside he would be absolutely no point to have a would put hearing and this is really as far as i can tell the only factual dispute of the parties and that is our position or my position on appeal but there is no mention it and again there was a report hearing any mention ever read that i can find in the record seems to be added after that the only indication of it i see besides this affidavit that was provided for this litigation was the u jurisdiction and that it's our position if the government wants to put forward and have the court rely on a factual finding that there was a threat that they should have to produce it this isn't a question of credibility it's not a question of you don't believe in barely anything like that it either exists or it doesn't and the ten nd to do exactly that under very similar circumstances so that the government was going to state that there was a threat they need to produce it and they have it as far as i can tell or anything  case well that was a just a wrong legal concession and here this is a factual confession i don't see any kind of material distinction or that makes norman doesn't provide one especially when this is the circumstance of whether legal pleading was filed and existed and either does or it doesn't so it's almost more similar to a in some ways a legal concession because it's either correct or it isn't so it's our position that it shouldn't be held against  case law especially when from what i can tell it of course i'm looking at it up to the fact it appears to be wrong because the b m p tried to add it after the fact and that u s marshal form so it should be held against marshall for me your turn to work what pages that is not it's on page thirty one of the appendix and i had never seen one of these forms of for we usually don't have access to it but it's kind of the internal teeters yes your honor it was and i think we can say it's clear that it was clear air because this teacher doesn't just say it she says it and then she cites two parts in the record for support that there's a red or no red exist so we know two you know she's not saying i looked in this file i found it there's a red she's saying in my review because my understanding of individuals like ms tears when they come into these kinds of cases they review the file and she's saying i judges and all the individuals involved just in this process now at the time that's not asking for when the government is nice these cases where you know it truly was a mistake or transferred and they say i'm trying to say gotcha prisoner and went on a very violent robbery crime spree at that point time here we had one prior armed robbery conviction he had outstanding warrants for robberies five other separate cases prior to one thousand nine hundred and five and two pending cases in states in five different states and after being undeterred by that and is pending state sentence in an old and by as a scape you want to commit another six robberies in new mexico and one in arkansas worse he was to five hundred and thirty five months and was silent as to whether or not they have an concurrent and i think his mention of how old he would be when he got out it's a pretty big leap to make that some type of discussion about running concurrent but what do you propose that sentence consecutive to the thirty years in arkansas this was a time and a sentence well earned by the violent crime spree in a petition that he affirmed under penalty of perjury and the affidavit filed by the b o p both acknowledge that there was in fact a wri know one way or the other you know there's a red but st rd the government's proposing that that fact whether or not there is a writ is subject to clear view what's  a robin teeters is looking at the docket she sees a docket it has an arrest warrant an indictment from idaho and a rule forty hearing in western arkansas there is a writ i don't think that's exactly correct if there is a writ of add prosecutor on issues there does not have to be a rule forty here but that doesn't necessarily say that there isn't a rule forty hearing  performed when there is a threat and why is that so is because the nature of how the sis what robin tejas looking at is defend as is in state of arkansas custody and  there's an arrest warrant and indictment and there has to be some legal vehicle to get mr wiseman out of state custody and over to the federal courthouse in the legal vehicle to do the head is a corpus so in order to get source he's when she's looking at the rural forty here and along with the arrest and the indictment and her experience in reviewing these type of records but i believe supports her assertion in that affidavit is exactly that he has to get from there from the state of arkansas custody over to the western arkansas district court now normally you know and another example of that is well firm conviction that a mistake was made and that cannot be from just the mere absent it doesn't occur rick is not on the record is not a definite firm conviction and a mistake was made normally you know the buli other way for defendant to get over there is if the state of arkansas dismiss the charges releases them on bond he gets paroled or is sentenced in expires and that's something this court decided or looking at the intent to relinquish and then those things occur so in order for mr wiseman to get from the state of arkansas custody over the western arkansas courthouse or it was a way to accomplish that when  the courthouse the rule forty hearing just basically confirmed that i think that is what the courts or what robin tears is looking at making that conclusion there are other things that support th proof whatsoever some conspiracy that back in one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven that they entered that for the sole purpose of trying to cover up with the b o p that they were frustrated and just wanted to get rid of him i think what's also important what if there was no writ why does that necessarily show i mean even if there was no writ couldn't it have been a mistake that they moved him over without the but always it would seem to release jurisdiction if they didn't parole m r otherwise and descendants well it's always possible the problem is now trying to reconstruct that twenty three years later  ret how does that show that arkansas gave up  well i think then some of the other cases and i think even the weeks case which defense relies on don't necessarily say that the writ of at prosecution is the end of the analysis arkansas has primary jurisdiction until there is evidence of their intense to relinquish that in this court's case in coal they founded that primary jurisdiction be can be relinquish things i said before release on bail dismissal parole experts spiration weeks actually looked at the writ of habeas not being there but also in weeks what is different here is there was other evidence of an can't buy and that case i believe you have to assume that they were doing that because they were waiting primary jurisdiction and i want to try and distinction because counsel talked about ordinary course they'd get a writ and then they'd go back for state that usually happens when someone is on state charges that are pending and then they get a writ to charge them with something federally and then they have to go back to state court now sure sometimes when someone's been sentenced in state court they'll still get a writ and then to go up to be charge of other whatever federal offense but sometimes they don't because as a former state prosecutor they don't want to deal with it they know they're getting a bunch of time the federal system so that the fact that there isn't a writ is highly highly indicative of the fact that  paperwork that shows that he's been discharged from state prison when there have to be some documentation of that no or i don't believe and i think the fact that they let him be the end of it from my understanding and from my reading of the cases you don't really see a doctor and it's like that and if they're really that's why they're wrist so important because there are there is no red that's what triggers this presumption that they're doing things properly so if they're doing it without a writ that there's a reason and then the reason is that they want to wait primary jurisdiction and turn them over to them that never seen i mean granted in iowa we don't have these cases very often that i've never