the reason for that delay is the crux of this appeal the district court blamed mr ward even after it found that law enforcement was lackadaisical in apre handing him and even after it presume that mr ward had been prejudiced by that mr ward had been prejudiced right back then that's a revengeful presumption right that's correct you're on the right so the court didn't alternately find that he was prejudiced right i believe the course correct that the court did not make a finding that he was that findings is clearly erroneous and it's not supported by the record first like to point out that mr ward was unaware of the indictment and i think that that's a point of great significance in the cases that are cited by the parties in the briefs courts have not placed the blame on the defendant in any instance where the defendant was unaware of the charges in this way this case would be unique the evidence is on contradicted that mr ward did washington identification it doesn't fit within the relevant time period it's from ninety three that expired in ninety five law enforcement had no reason to believe it had been renewed and in fact law enforcement didn't think he was there clee washington they didn't go looking for eric lee washington from early on they knew it was william ward and that's who they were looking for with respect to the missouri driver's license that the government advanced as as another false identification he didn't even apply for that one until august of two thousand and four that's well after the government had abandoned its search for mr ward so i would submit to the court that the alias this you it didn't affect it a lot of people have the same license their whole life in their name that's correct and mr ward did have a driver's license in his name and the next one that's true your honor but but i think the point is with respect to the aliases issue is that it didn't throw the government off the senate didn't cause any part of the delay the governor wasn't to use or the question was whether or not you said he didn't have any reason or there's no evidence to suggest that he was in the where of the indictment the fact that he engaged in precisely that issue where the defendant had a false false identification or was using an alias and the court arrives at the conclusion that use of an alias doesn't support the inference necessarily that he was trying to evade law enforcement and that the facts are very similar in brown the defendant had a false identification in order to be able to drive because his prior license had been suspended in this case we have similar evidence that mr ward's license had been suspended and so i don't think that the any inference that use the driver's license was to avoid law enforcement in this case how about the fact that law enforcement probably lived with this parents and when they went to talk to his because they didn't want to tip him off so when they went to the house they said that they were l a p d that they were looking for him with respect to the cell phone issue it is true that he did go to the parents house and i wouldn't fault law enforcement for starting there i think where i would quibble with the investigation is the fact that over time over four or five years nothing changed in that and that's similar to other cases such as doggett where what we have is law enforcement has  a presumption of where the defendant lives it becomes more and more questionable and yet they don't do anything about it they don't change anything here the same thing they started it at his parents address after a little while it turned up empty and they did nothing about it even when good leads came in for instance they had a lead that he lived at this kelso address that he was steve the driver's license to that address they didn't even go by that and knock on the door they didn't drive by single time they submitted a postal verification form to see who was receiving mail there he came up with two names they never two other names of the war the never followed up on that which i think not coincidentally rebuts the police that they thought he might be using an alias because if they got two different names that they weren't expecting that yet they didn't even follow up on it it's hard for me to believe that they really believe he was using an alias if i could at this time i'd like to  i think that you have to look at the investigations and entirety that way and in the beginning as this investigation that the law enforcement agents in fact did engage and and quite diligent efforts to locate the defendant at the time he was indicted in september one thousand nine hundred ninety nine they had already again a significant amount of information suggesting where he the most likely place where he would be you know exerting maitland and address and at that point in october of ninet car that was registered to the senate and followed up on that lead that led them to another address on third avenue where they connected for surveillances again in october of one nine hundred ninety nine so certainly the beginning of the washington and said it was important that you know the kind of contact them and ask the parents of that point that if they knew his whereabouts they told him and that they did not so that you know there was not only surveillance but  face to face contact inquiries with and with the defendant's parents and merely not telling really telling them of the pending indictment but that was a reasonable effort also because of course they did not want to tip off the defendant directly that he was facing federal drug charges because that would just make it more likely that he would flee if they were told and both invited he might have turned himself in he might have but i think it's also reasonable for law enforcement to conclude that that would make it more likely that he would try to evade than and so i think what they had a reasonable judgment and concluding that instead they would come up with something that was serious and asked to say you know you need to come forward you need to talk to the police but not so serious namely federal drug charges that he would have a motivation to file to inspector inspector of fine print prior to that they had identified that kelso address in an auto tracked search back in december of two thousand lines and at that time they did follow up on that address they did  address verification by checking with the postal carrier to find out who was receiving mail at that address and consistently with all the other evidence in this case different word was not receiving mail at that address at that time and he had not listed that address with the d m v or elsewhere their efforts not unreasonably because they do have to make choices about where they spend their time to efforts up to that point had not been fruitful so they did steve scale back and at that point began simply doing  give the government the benefit of the doubt in terms of as you say they were diligent at the front end by going after the parents address putting their efforts there but once they're tipped on kelso you've got what about thirty three thirty inspectors didn't have that information until january of two thousand and three so october two thousand jay to january two thousand and three even if we take october of two thousand and two and as that date his arrest was in august of two thousand and four so we're talking about deference it's a factual finding it and as well as this court case where it and the other cases cited do say that the court's finding on that second factor regarding the government's negligence or the reasons for the delay is is entitled to  that the court did also note that the government's after the government's had been somewhat lackadaisical and you know not perfect but that the defendants used that aliases in providing conflicting information about his whereabouts what was also significant contributing american it's sort of you getting double credit here it sounds like well i mean that certainly could have been you know something that they think might have thought about why he might be receiving mail in different name but i don't think that means that if the government's putting the blame on the defender for using was there at the address all they had to do was go talk to a neighbor and say you know anybody named ward in the neighborhood the houses are there kills them well arguably although they certainly did not that was not the primary interest they had associated with him government did not engage in unreasonable search efforts and of the defendant contributed to the delay is not a presumed prejudice in this case and in any event the government should have been given the opportunity to rebut the presumption and in this case this is if any case your honor if i could just pick up on a couple of the points that came out in the during the government's argument first the government alluded to the fact that law enforcement had gone in spoken with mr ward's parents and that you know that the parents and there the court the district court pointed out the fact that it's really not a surprise to law enforcement or shouldn't be at least that a parent wouldn't come clean and and give up and they're certainly not under any obligation to provide that information in a sense what i'm trying to impart from that is is that that that wasn't enough that they did go there and i'm not criticize the fact that they went there that's that's certainly what i would do were i doing the investigation but the fact that they essentially let it rest at that point i think is it's where you get into being in the criticize the government their search sector and the government point alluded that mr that they had the kelso address a october two thousand and two or that that's when the time should count against them for having it i would submit they had the address in december two thousand and one and that's when they filled out the postal verification form so really we're not looking at twenty two months we're looking at basically three closer to three years thirty months thirty four months finally one of the points that the court made and i think it's a very good one is the fact that mr ward the fact that he went out of state the fact that he didn't have a car in his name which in fact he did for two years with the fact that he didn't have a car after after that the fact that he didn't have a job these are all these would be habits consistent with a lot of people and in our society people college students frequently change address frequently they may not have a car in their name they may not be employed none of these points none of these finding the blame certainly for the last thirty six months or thirty four months should be placed on the government because there we know that they were looking for many more as the core pointed out he had a couple he had a couple they did a couple