rgument this morning this get us is our courtroom deputy and she will be our time keeper and she will let counsel know when they have reached the point when they have two minutes left for their argument and when the fifteen minutes or whatever time they have for their argument has expired and we are ready to proceed with the st case and that  case is darion bryant versus benjamin ford the georgia warden and sidney renee strickland is here for bryant and matthew crowder is here for the georgia warden judicial notice was not properly taken in this case but even setting that aside this court cannot affirm because the district court used the wrong date in determining when mr bryant post conviction proceedings became final and the attorney may i ask you a question counsel when when do you what is your position that would be the correct date for when the appeal became current your honor the correct date to use would be the date of the court's record and it is not available on the georgia supreme court's web site so that is a no i do believe that the attorney general's office has put in their letter brief a date when they believe the rim editor was issued however the attorney general has not cited a source for where that date where that date comes from so i have been unable unable to see and also your honor this court should not take any notice of our image or date at this point because it's generally not this court's practice on appeal to fact in this case in this appeal and in mr bryant two thousand two hundred and fifty four dollars petition and so if this court were to take judicial notice at this point it would be deciding the case based on facts not in the record decisive fact on appeal where it was not taken in the district court and also doing so would run afoul of the pie add decision itself paez specifically and explicitly relied on the fact that when judicial notice was taken in that case it was at the report and recommendation stage where the petitioner had an opportunity to object to both the propriety of taking judicial notice and to the actual argument he's going to tell us that the georgia supreme court issued the rim editor or november th of two thousand and seventeen if we were able to take petition would be outside of the one year statute of limitations but again your honor mr bryant has had no opportunity to verify that that is the remitted or date and has no opportunity to be heard on the  propriety of taking judicial notice that this point and whether that date is in fact correct and in fact the pie as decision when it when it found that there was no abuse of discretion in taking judicial notice they're specifically noted that the district court had used the web site of the four disappeared court in which the petitioner had been convicted and gave the specific citation for the website where that was found and noted that those dockets reflected the dates of the proceedings from the st appearance all the way through the appellate courts read resolution of the post conviction but actions and because the district court had  specifically stated the website and the case number in that case both the petitioner and this court were able to go on to the same website and see exactly what the court was taking judicial notice of and to verify against any records that the petitioner may have had and the court emphasized that this these kind of safeguards  knows this is mr bryant very last opportunity to be heard in court on these convictions and as the pious court noted it's all in the case that inmates don't have ready access to their own legal papers i believe that's the case and this situation here where mr bryant did not have access to his original habeas state hey b it's filings and therefore did not know the date and still does not know the date that there were a minute or was issued but because in pi ad the court gave specific citations to the website that would had a thorough review of everything in the state court does have a place for that however that goes back to what i was saying about the fact that mr bryant apparently does not have access to his legal papers that this is social go but doesn't that go back to the judge will some original question which is on the face of the petition isn't it appears that the petition is on time well because he wrote that on his petition mr bryant wrote that the last date of court judge after the fact after the issued just st order and that's what the magistrate relied on yes that's correct your honor that is what happened in this case and again i believe mr bryant does not have access to the dates of his own legal proceedings and if you look at pi as that the court there specifically says that it is appropriate for the district court this to a sponsor dismissed based on the statute of expedition is not entitled to release to district court the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the court the clerk to notify the petitioner so i mean i understand what the the the original petition says and then your client's all  yes your honor so if you look at everything that mr bryant woman is wanting and if you look at everything that mr bryant filed then it does not appear on the face if you consider the petition as well as his objections and his amended objections which the district court did consider it does not appear on the face that the petition is untimely because he submitted that date in two thousand and eleven that the state haziest was filed and then he did not have the i did want to at least at the outset i think judge will go ahead on this a little bit is to go back and just kind of talk about how this progressed starting with the founding of the petition and sort of the issue of taking judicial notice or not because the petition mr bryan has made an argument that it was improper to take judicial notice when the when that was done because he didn't have a chance to respond and again to face the petition is a little bit scant in terms of face of material in which of course under rule for the screening process that's what has to be looked at to determine if there's a difference and help the relief or not based on the face of petition and when the conviction was timely  and when that one year deadline to valid twenty to fifty four petitions one of ron any information about in the original state he was petition the it was more than three and a half years i believe after the twenty to fifty four deadline ran prior what was the date in the original petition is wrong and it's clear from the record that's wrong would you still say that from the base of the petition it's on timely you're on when you say the record you're referring to well let's say whether the dock it or information that easily available to the district court but the date in the petition is wrong makes it on timely but it would be untimely according to the actual date of the various filing and disposition i don't know that i would say it's a duty i think it's wrong within their discretion but i think there has to be some burden put on the petitioner as and then as has been said there are spaces for this to be discussed there is all the spaces for the day if one of the was filed if there was an appeal if there was a saw to be an appeal from the state a b s petition their space on the twenty to fifty four form to put in all that information as well as the space near the back of the petition where it says give them about half a page i think district court makes his ruling there's a cross in the mail as in terms of his amended objection the district court rules on the amended objections and addresses the on timeliness argument in the amended objection but the question i have is how can we as the appellate court verify or how how do we have the ability with this record to know what the district court was going on when we don't georgia supreme court's web site for these cases so if we didn't even take judicial notice of the operative then i don't understand why we should not vacate the district court's  and send it back and then you all fight about this at the district court level and that the district court determine what the operative date is and if the court is inclined to do that and i would understand that information limited as for any case in terms of denials of c b c applications i mean i went to the y look at the record for this case specifically and it's and that's what's showing and there's just not and there's not a but the one thing i did want to point out is that you know there are all these bizarre bits that all these cases need to be decided on a case by case basis because there are plenty of times you know if we consider again just to face this petition for the day it was apparently three years on time at least business racialist provided you know there's these things need to be looked at a case by case basis because if as position is clearly wildly and timely based on the information was provided then the rule for process still needs to have the ability to screen the is out at that stage and i just want to make sure that that's our position that if it's a close case then of course the district court or the magistrate judge has the authorit you and i did also want to respond to mr upon his argument about the state court record believe her position is that is the best practice to get the entire state court record and then as i sa original brief in this case it's our religion of the entire state court record is not really necessary what you're dealing with is trying to figure out when the time the finale of a conviction was and we don't feel you need the entire state record to do that  obviously there are certain relevant documents from our criminal case that can that will shed light on that issue but in terms of the entire complete record we don't feel that it's necessary to have to submit that in every case of the chairman of a twenty to fifty four petition is time but at the time the district court issued the order in this case the nd order this was more than a year before the even the st pious decision came out and again while the order just merely said that it was head review the say was proceeding and but again we feel that if the court needs to send it back for consider consideration the remitted or date which again we agree is the date of one of the a b s cables final then it can certainly do that but we don't we still feel that there will be for this court to a phone the district court's decision and the attorney general's concession that this court cannot take judicial notice of the limited or date i believe the court must make the district court order and send it back to the district court for a copeland is that right i know your honor ok i'm sorry all right well thank you very much for your service ok thank you