your honors there's only one question that's properly before and it's this whether the district court properly denied mr moore's amended hippias petition on that point the state concedes error on page twelve to thirteen of it's a state of florida  florida seems to suggest that the district court didn't grant mr moore the ability to amend his petition just factually incorrect your honor the district court did grant him rule fifteen so the rule fifteen argument is frankly a little mystified it's not quite clear what the state of florida is trying to get at another thing the state of florida science is well how can the district where have abused its disc advocate but what's really difficult about this are going is that mr moore did identify the correct florida procedure rule despite proceeding pro se and yet the district court inexplic ignored the proper role that mr moore managed to cite so that argument sort of falls by the wayside and the last thing the state of florida sighs at the way was improperly granted for a hodgepodge of reasons none of which  argument today at that point the gate spent open the cat's out of the bag you really can't close the gate at that point all of the resources have been deployed so i would urge urge the court to set aside if it finds that the sea is defective it doesn't have to  it it can just proceed to the appeal expression in this case which is unlike the grown where the state concedes error there is absolutely no question that mr moore state petition if the court is interested in talking about you know the potato that's already been filed these amended claims came fourteen months after he filed his because the amendments to re late back to the original da the rule of procedure and even after that rule procedure came out there is case law from two thousand and eight in florida that says the conviction and sentence become final on the date mandate issues from the original appeal even if the case but how do we ignore it at this time how do we know what the florida supreme court said i think you don't have to ignore it but the fact that the district court was following florida law that let's hold me tell me one are we obliged to accept and apply what the florida supreme court's ok if we do how do we apply it to this case let's accept it wasn't cited to the district court well could have any the one then the district court applies this outdated rule about when the clock begins to run on the state from the original mandate instead of the reasons and so so part of the time first notion is this idea that the pro se receiving per se didn't raise the right legal argument in fact he did he cited the right rule he cited florida role nine point one four one d five which was in effect one four one d five and then you look at the florida rule it does say that you have two years from when your sentence becomes final which is exactly the role that he pointed to he studied it cited the right standard i believe maybe he got  some of the dates wrong in his position but he was proceeding process i and is clearly manifest error and obviously meets the standard for a fifty nine motion the next thing that i want to briefly clarify is this notion that he del to exhaust claims in state court first he did that that's that's why there is a delay of fourteen months he had to wait for the state courts to decide his petition  courts decided is petition he followed the federal mandate petition with them to so this notion that you know he's delaying war where here ten years later or eight years later because of errors that he did and he was diligent throughout it was a combination of the fact that the district court made error after error combined with the fact that prepares you to exhaust claims before state court that accounts for the delay there was also a notion that maybe the petition wasn't timely the the timeline that i provided in my initial appellate brief clearly sets out you know how the clock stopped i'm happy to go into that but it seems your honour's understand that point and it doesn't seem like the state's telling you much other than well it's untimely without any explanation whatsoever and it's frankly not in their brief as to why you know my clock or my timeline is off so the court doesn't have any questions about that all simply sit down thank you very much thank