circuit in the case in the st of the vassar college mr sheppard claims that since the change the charges against him arose from the same general authorization which is a personal property which led to a confrontation it's been sufficiently play and i understand your position correctly i don't want to sound vague but i think i have enough to flee compared to more pages but i will say that there are other circuits including the four circuits that have ruled on this precise issue since me re this issue and i have the citations where they've said enough of the theories under are several cases that you believe are in your favor that have come out since you found your brief right ok so if have you submitted twenty eight dollars a letter to to give the court an opportunity to look at those as well as to give opposing counsel an opportunity to look at those now and i'll just be honest though i've come across these cases last night in preparing for this argument ok you have to supplement the understand that there are there are some other circuits that have looked at these types of tight on line claims under a more generic twaddling analysis but in this case you client guilty of the charges against him nor is there any question as to students least student a being guilty of the charges against her nor of the penalty opposed against dieudonn that the only difference between the parties is the timing of when the discipline was and is there anything else that you say reflects a difference between the two well the timing but i also  in being forced into utilization of those procedures immunity applies that would still ready defeat your client's claim it was and as i as i read your brief on page sixteen you say it's an open question whether students enjoy  already saying what you just said that these policies create a property interest and there's no for circuit law saying that just own that basis or i understand your argument but given the fact that we don't have anything you know any appellate court is there is there any way it can be clearly established i'm tired of running you i think that to for your honor i'm so he himself only proves the selective enforcement theory and i think it's worth noting and this court issued an unpublished decision last october this past october where this court recognized the use  impressed college he's out of the district of matching hughes's and there there were allegations that whereas the college at issue encouraged the female students to file a complaint against the male student when there were sexual misconduct allegations and by to file a complaint and so the differential treatment by the university of the male versus female students there was the allegations in the complaint that there was a difference in treatment here the only difference is in the proceedings of the  disciplinary process student a was disciplined and what and based consequences to larceny in the disciplinary process so the only difference is simply the case and that's insufficient to show differential treatment but it's certainly insufficient to show that the reason the differential treatment was was based on sex especially when mr sheppard was committed a violent offense under the student code and student a committed it pro he simply took a cell phone charger and some clothing items so that clearly explains the difference in the piece of the disciplinary proceedings i think it's bears noting let the court of additional questions on the title nine piece of court the supreme court of the united states and the supreme court of her virginia adopting his novel same incident there this court on multiple occasions emphasize the deference that it accords to academic decision the king particularly in the disciplinary process that deference is appropriate here and the district court's decision should be affirmed unless the court has any more questions and if i can find it if you don't have it quickly