been was in solitary confinement without his personal legal files legal materials it doesn't matter if you had access to the law library during that time because that is almost useless without your case files and personal legal material and from argue that there is no dispute that he was responsible for being in prison in the first place well without regard to why he was there originally a question i really have is you are you're seeking equity here as i understand your argument and th shouldn't the court consider that in determining whether or not your client is entitle to equitable throwing under and i think i think that what the court should consider is that even the c d c admits and  said amounted to no more than ninety seven days but almost certainly far less than that to prepare a state hate this petition which is something that the federal courts encourage him to exhaust before he comes to federal court the strongest evidence to support  declarations that he had just a few days in between four counties petitions is the fact that he actually went to the law library only five times over a three and a half year period when he also had access to his personal legal materials and although the prison records we were able to get during two years of discovery don't cover every time period that we would like every document that we received dozens facts support mr hamdan the version of this condition question is should that be enough to stop the clock and to say that ok ninety seven days congress gave him three hundred sixty five as long as he got it in that that was trying there's really only one file your petition to reopen within ninety days that's it and we found that equitable tolling could apply to extend that ninety day period here congress to specifically step in and pay you get one year and if we are to extend the rule and so cop you are asking us to increase that one year period on aquittal backgrounds to almost four years and that seems to me to be a stretch given the congressional preference for a shorter period rather than a period that's four times as long i don't really think of it your honor as an extension of that time i think that if the clock is stopped because it is locked in the cell and can't use the library and can't get his case files i don't think that you're extending the time period you're using equit now has amounted to two years of discovery and factual inquiry in order to decide when an impediment existed and when it was removed and we now have that answer and her answer is you're not entitled to equitable tolling for the whole four year period is your then determined based on the petitioners concession i guess that there were one hundred seventeen days in which there was no lock down and he had access to the library because this is what the state prevented him from going to the library when in fact they sent into the library and he engaged in serious sexual misconduct and was removed and he did this on repeated occasions this isn't a situation rule factor interviews the library's rule if you're your preferred use or you well your honor the and this is another question the the rules are flexible it is true that under and i mean the c has its own reasons for what it does but it's true that a p l u has to have a deadline and a court order deadline but it's also true that just because you're not appeal you doesn't mean if you're just a general population in maine doesn't mean you don't get to go to the library is the record show in fact you didn't i mean even during lockdowns that appeal to you is preferred legal user and that just means that they get greater access but it is true that you have to have  allowed to use materials and have is his own legal materials with them as opposed to using the copy machine or are not having them and all of those were between lockdowns which is consistent with what he's saying is that he had just a few days of a point and secondly there are all the