he has time for two reasons one of them is that he did not present in a timely manner the challenge to his nine hundred ninety five unconstitutional conviction in pierce county and as we have argued in our i believe distinguishes what's going on here and in part that is because in the lackawanna court wacken like want to decision what the titian are was doing in that case was he was challenging the prior conviction when the prior convictions weren't the sole factor that enhanced that subsequence that seems to be a difference without a distinction in terms of putting finality to these things no reflection on you of course but your to look at your call your claim and i don't think your claim even holds any water in terms of miscarriage of justice looking at the transcript of what the judge told your client when he pleaded it seems pretty clear to me that he was thinking the strands of what he was going to get there were no date for mister heartly this he would then change the judgment and sentence and what he would do is he would order that he be have jail time instead sorry have in patient drug treatment instead start rolling to determine whether or not mr bartley was actually going to be eligible for that inpatient treatment and the process made its way through all the way until june of ninety five two months later almost to the date at which time it was discovered to everyone's surprise the prosecutor ms moss dollar and even mr math who did the evaluation that this this was the first time that this mosteller was a made aware that treatment instead of jail time was no longer available not only to mr bartley but then on to no one  so mr bartley counseled with her with the understanding that treatment was available and i think also the colloquy between mr bartley and judge steiner was such that it was very clear that mr bar and yet in the judgment expense the judge well and that when they came back to him with the information about the treatment and that he was going to be eligible for the treatment and then he would receive that date if he would then consider that and that speaks to here we are years later trying to reopen a totally dead case well your honor this was also reopened after nine months of mr barkley trying to convince his nine hundred ninety eight attorney that they should be looked into and that attorney did nothing the petitioner was told by council that he was going to file something in the council committing malpractise and just didn't didn't get it done after saying i will and being a pilot and the council also wouldn't refuse didn't return the files to the petitioner before the deadline it wrong so there was no way the petition there could have found anything but i think it's as egregious here your honor why  if she said to the incarcerated convict like i'm going to file this for you i've got your files i'm going to file and then she didn't that would be like spitzer but that didn't happen here you go on i think that you have a minute to go i think that it is the obligation of any attorney to follow through on a case and she had  acknowledges that she did not file a notice of appeal she did not go to mr barclay and tell him that he had a basis for an appeal in fact the language on the judgment and sentence that addresses the one year assistant attorney general representing the respondent the district court in this case correctly this deny the petition for three reasons the person the court did not reach but the court me affirm the judgment on the basis of the end of a procedural bar based on state diligence that's not the case here the hair is my counsel occurred during the direct appeal he then procedurally defaulted on his claim by not filing a fake lateral challenge in a timely manner he had noticed that he had one year to do so it was in the judgment and sentence he was in pfizer the one year time limit he failed to do so he then failed to file a federal habeas petition within one year federal statute of limitations there's no allegation that counsel on the direct appeal somehow prevented him from filing either timely collateral challenge in state court for federal habeas corpus petition bits and just does not apply and under the facts in this case and all the claims  procedurally barred they were never presented fairly to the state supreme court they were presented for the challenge to the ninety five conviction were presented late and according to press play held them time barred the challenge to the one nine a conviction under the current plan was never raised in any form the petitioner raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel but that had to deal with failure to move to sever counts in the trial it had nothing to do with the sentencing in the ferry to challenge the prior conviction contrary to any argument by petitioner we did raise this issue below we raised it in our answer of course record ten pages ten to thirteen they responded to it in the petitioner followed his petition in in the district court in this case under lackawanna it does close the door a lackawanna court held that much or sentence on a conviction expires in your during the time period of the time to challenge it in either a stay collateral proceeding from ninety five to ninety six or the time period for challenging or for filing a federal habeas petition in ninety six to ninety seven that does not go to his ability to file either state or federal collateral challenge the exceptions noted by justice o'connor and they were picked and they were not adopted that i would submit they're not adopted as actual holding of the court because the court didn't reach