his right to have all of his property with him and his right to only have so legal papers separately he also took the position in the limited one sided hearing that he was offered that he was not allowed at all to go back to of the officers and the record reflects your honor that he specifically mentioned at the hearing that he would have liked to been able to call another correctional officer and that he would have liked to have been able to call witnesses in the dining area credibility determination essentially no your honor because it doesn't cover all of the factors here the credibility of that one correctional officer is one fact that goes to one of the factors the that i mentioned the diligence is yes your honor when you look at that factor and the other facts under that factor as well as the other factors and look at the cases in the ninth circuit that hold that even a lack of diligence such as in the two point on two point six one acres case a complete lack of diligence and i case where a corporation failed to maintain its corporate status for fourteen years was found yet the court found that the other three factors weighed in favor of continuance because there was no material inconvenience to the parties there was significant prejudice to the company not allowed to review its status and the usefulness was clearly demonstrated that a short and he was given an opportunity according to the record to go around search for things the officer volunteered to go back and get it for him you don't want that there were people waiting to testify they were ready for trial there was can inconvenience  does have to be your honor there has to be a finding if it's per se gaining but each of the factors to the four factors whether they were referred to per se as part of the four factors was considered each of them is referred to in the record and at least by my lights at least three of the four clearly favor the state in this case what am i missing well you are like i said the  the record reflects and this is a person who was very hard for four years to bring his case to trial he took depositions he prepared according to his notice of appeal thirty different files including an opening statement closing statement seven there was a finding the plaintiff it given ample opportunity in which to retrieve his legal materials officer gave ample opportunity and stressed and even afforded mr reynolds the opportunity to get his legal materials  aside that he did your honor but if you're looking at a credibility determination he would have had the opportunity and he stated on the record that he would have liked to have called the other correctional officer he was denied the opportunity to do that only the defense in that case was allowed to call the witnesses they wanted to call and that's that and that respectfully does not meet the standard when you look at the cases and including other cases where the prejudice would have been much more significant for example the united states versus clown case in the ninth retrieve his papers actually would have made any difference at trial the the dentist had called experts it was overwhelming evidence the fact that he had thirty five or forty questions written out it strikes me that that would not have made any real difference and so really i'd like to understand your prejudice argument yes your honor well my client instead of the thirty files of legal papers that he had prepared for over the four years for his case was given a piece of paper into pencils by the court to prepare his case in the clone case that i just mentioned your honor the court found that even material changes in the demeanor of the testifying witness the defendant in that case would have been sufficient prejudice to allow the jury to conclude that because he was shaken up because of his son's illness because he was not speaking in the same tone as before that was sufficient prejudiced any lawyer in this courtroom your honor would be at a loss to try a case with two pencils and a piece of paper that they had prepared for  can hard to understand what difference it could have made while your honor the case is cited demonstrates the level of prejudice is a much lower standard than the high level of clear prejudice argument strongest argument is that he was given full rights hearing that's what i wanted to address your honor i let me go ahead and clarify at the hearing that this record had a chance because of the nature of the hearing and because the jury was waiting and managed to get some telephonic testimony from a correctional officer there has been no offer of proof as to what additional evidence other than the testimony of other inmates would have added to this particular question other he wanted to call now the correctional officer i  weakest point for plaintiff that there has been nothing pointed to in terms of additional evidence that he could have developed this was a straightforward factual scenario he was involved one incident two individuals it's not as if there were any particular s materials like that but the record is not very precise on that your honor he simply said in preparing for this that would have been helpful to him to teach any of the witness your honor i can't say that i