just i'm having a hard time hearing you giving a signal to our technical gurus over here is this better much better ok thanks for coming i'm sorry for conduct occurred when he was just fifteen years program or any other supreme court case that explains when a meaningful opportunity must take place during a juvenile's life so your honor what graham says is that the meaningful opportunity to obtain release has to come sufficiently sue that the juvenile will have a chance to reenter society to find for film and outside prison walls to seek reconciliation with society that's not something that can be satisfied by release just in time to die as you might it might be implied so your honor i think when graham says explicitly that it's intending to give every juvenile a chance to demonstrate maturity and reform that's at fifty six to us seventy nine so that means that when when a sentence does not allow for them to do so until just before and perhaps even after their natural life expectancy that's not something that satisfies grant even on tape and assuming that's true based on the record here how can we say that this was just before or after life expectancy because he admitted that his life expectancy was sixty three point two years and he's going to be released when he's five thousand and fifty one your hon he was pointing to a general mortality table published by the us department of health and human services and he did write in his reply brief that his life expectancy was sixty three two years based on that general table but he continued in the very next very same paragraph immediately that although his sentence may not be on that general mortality table it can be suggested as some have long term incarceration present health and safety risks that tend to decrease life expectancy as compared to the general population and in support  was the case factors such as gang violence factors such as contagious disease be especially relevant these days due in fact considerably short life expectancy for those in prison for lying to her assuming it was in the reply brief so assuming that wasn't waived he still raises the question or raises the point that the life expectancy might be something less than sixty three two years that the table reflects but there's nothing that gibson alternative life expectancy is that it wouldn't be sixty years or sixty one years or fifty nine years so again we're on hey p s review how is that in unreasonable application of the facts given the general standard under current am and that there's nothing in the record that would give us any specific facts as to how long he may be expected to live based on his time in prison your honor it's true that mr sanders didn't posit another number a shorter decrease his life expected indeed the district court which was well aware of behavior standard in the restrictions on the record to what was before the state court implicitly found that mr sanders life expectancy was just a few years after his st parole eligibility when it granted  yes your honor and we know from montgomery that it has to be at least a few years at least some years and so at the very least it has to be that and i think that when you apply a clear language of cram that juveniles have to have a chance to seek a meaningful opportunity that that requires some some further period additionally i don't believe your honour's that the median life expectancy is necessarily the right standard to you and the median is of course just an average it's just a coin flip of having even a chance to a meaningful opportunity of maturity and rehabilitation and to seek for film and to reconcile with society as graham requires that may ultimately be true is true this time but again how do we make that determination on hippias how can we say that it was an unreasonable application on hey b s for a standard that it is nowhere in what the supreme court has said you want to be so the only two conclusions that the wisconsin court of appeals reached with respect to this argument were one that mr sanders graham and say what is the whole holds that for a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide the th amendment forbids the sentence of life without parole now he's parole eligible within his life expectancy  you can read the rest of the opinion more broadly you can also as many courts have and you can also they will there are some countervailing considerations here and this is a b s in the court hasn't gone that far yet and we don't have to go that far yet as we state court or in our case reviewing state court decision saying it's not contrary to supreme court holds that's that's what i'm struggling with with your argument here  yes yes i'm sorry you off well know the let me ask about the meaningful opportunity forget about the timing do we evaluate on an empirical basis whether parole offers a meaningful opportunity is that a more formal legal test we look at and what population if it's an imperial fest do we look at one percent ten percent is that a meaningful horrific offenses our spirit rehabilitated your honor i think that it's it whether you look to the factors that are required to be considered or whether you look to  actual release rates or whether you look a combination of both of them what's clear in this case is that the wisconsin system is not likely to allow mr sanders to obtain the release of the opportunity secretly to demonstrate his maturity and rehabilitation which he's entitled brief and maybe as a segue can i ask you one question just as a kind of a framing matter for that the warden argues that that aspect of the appeal sanders kind of nd claim if you will here is and doesn't it make sense that that that's the proper way to read mechanically given you know that miller was all about you know mandatory underscore mandatory life sentences so you're out of the fact that mckinley were something that if lies to any sentence that's denominated in a number of years that's highly likely to lead to a prison here mr sanders is serving a one hundred and forty year sentence even if he's parole eligible there's been no suggestion that he's highly likely to obtain release before his death and about whether the whether the argument had been adequately raised in the state court there's no problem in either of those grounds here miller we know is retroactive that when there is no argument reach the conclusion about whether we had to graeme the views really for obviously the decision but it would not be appropriate when the majority did not reach that question that's correct your honor but if the if the reach the miller question at all because we're in a non homicide juvenile case which is controlled by graham so the question is really whether this is a life without parole sentence or a life with life you need a meaningful opportunity for parole for these juvenile not homicide offenders and the question really for this court is did the court of appeals reasonably incorrectly apply graeme unfolding that a prologue or to ninety beginning at age fifty qualifies parole was through the state's geriatric lease program which would have begun eligibility age sixty the th circuit the state court said that that was a meaningful opportunity to voice circuit rares and when it got to the supreme court look this is pretty exacting to be holding mr sanders in in a very strict literal way to his representation about sixty three point two years you know he clearly made the point in substance that he's worried about not having a chance in his lifetime of being paroled is no question he offered sixty three point two years but mr rubenstein is arguing  read read is read is argument in substance and this kind of literalism really has no place here or at least it may reflect a decision grounded on an reasonable well i think the and so at most what mr sanders argued was my life expectancy is sixty three point two years and it could be considerably shorter based on prison now just to go from that to say that the wisconsin court of appeals should have considered his life expectancy to be fifty i think is a stretch i don't know if considerably what he means by considerably shorter and is you know if the court has said well ok let's say fifty five is that is that right i think so there's that showing someone like him supposed to make i mean isn't it isn't the same look i don't know what i'm worried about is a meaningful opportunity of parole of parole i don't have the resources available to me to give it to you with more precision but i'm telling you i'm real concerned well i think there are two in the court really sort of found against sanders and two counts of st of all said you know he doesn't allege that he's he doesn't need life expectancy but i think but more so it's said there's really no authority for the proposition that fifty comes too late for the grand meaningful opportunity and there really truly isn't i mean you have you know i don't know what kind of any frankly i don't really know what kind of showings a defendant needs to make i think courts really when you look at the cases talking about when the meaningful opportunity must come to the extent that something that grand requires that you get i don't i don't think that's clearly established that graham acquires courts to draw lines that if the court struggling with that was talking about how do you even consider life expectancy what is the right status so we talk about the general population do we talk about race and gender which would certainly cause due process and equal protection problems at  sentencing we talk about prisoners on same state system we talk about prisoners who are all born the same year do we bring in an actuary to say what this person's life expectancy is does it depend on the kind of sentencing life expectancy can change you know the fact that mr sanders is forty now in all likelihood would change what his life expectancy is going forward that he that he's made it to forty might say that he's expected to live past fifty so i think and many courts really pointed out the problem was trying to rely on the life expectancy data and i don't think the court really has to answer that question here the things really the only question is under it reasonable to the court of appeals to say fifty wasn't too late and there there really is no authority no notes court has said that a date that early violates gra i think it really would depend on the case your honor and i and i say that because i you know again well i want to kind of back up a bit we actually don't have a record on what wisconsin's parole rate is and what what flow what the ram consider the inmates development and development rehabilitation is growth well he was an inmate that would it's reasonable to assume that that would that would satisfy  this point because they haven't said where now if you know and a one percent rate twenty two percent rate really could have a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the parole boards generally straight it could just simply have to do with the prisoners with that came up that released rate that was based on a study talking about life sentences which i understand wisconsin department of corrections considers life sentences as sort of a life sentence and  then it would necessarily include like a de facto life sentence or consecutive term the data does also doesn't separate out who you know whether those people released perhaps it was more juvenile offenders note three the petitioner the as the in essence your department is taking inconsistent positions on where the appropriate form is for challenging  up for parole if he gets an adverse decision he can challenge that and so she already he can there's other means in state court where he can challenge the rules procedures which i think would you know it would be possible to thirty whenever he comes out so i don't i don't see how he could have litigated anything because there's really no record on what what the word is doing or will  responsibility in the state to guarantee release and again neither case really talks about how lightly it needs to make rulings or how you know how open the rules is and there's like and you know frankly i don't i don't actually your honor sir i don't think it's quite right to say that mr sanders didn't raise the parole claim until this court he did say in his reply brief to the wisconsin court of appeals that the release rate was low and i got no response from that court just like his argument that his life is challenging the constitutionality of his sentence and as even the warden admits his sentence is ineffective life sentence except for the possibility of parole so under graham parole is functioning sort of as an affirmative defense something that the state is interposing to say you know no notwithstanding his one hundred and forty year sentence it's actually not a life sentence in that context as a response to mr sanders habeas argument under graham it's perfectly appropriate to look to the particulars of that system just as courts have done in function as just a statement done in court way it's structured legally or practically that we could conclude right now as a matter of law is going to foreclose a meaningful opportunity of parole it's it there's these are my words no one's argued it this way it's almost as if it's a facial challenge to the parole system you know through the prism of mr sanders predicament here and that that