please the court my name is brandon hall second i'm a recent graduate of the university of notre dame law school appearing under the supervision of robert palmer we were appointed by the court to represent appellant chambers on the issue of whether the district court erred in denying mr chambers rule sixty b motion for lack of jurisdiction the district court should be reversed for two reasons first a district court has the authority and discretion to reopen a case previously heard on appeal under rule sixty b and second the district court also has the authority and discretion to determine whether the term an attorney's abandonment meets the extraordinary circumstances requirement under rule sixt the difficulty is that the locus of all the bad action in this case does this court correct your honor it was primarily before before the case even reached this court it was proceed correct your honor but that was still be within within the realm of what six rule sixty b could correct how how selfish how can the district court order us to do something what the district court would necessarily be ordering you to do something the district court would be reopening the case vacating and reentering judgment tantra fresh appeal and then mr chambers would be able to choose to files or to brief supporting his certificate of appeal ability vacating and the it would be under the equitable nature of rule sixty six if there were extraordinary circumstances if the court determined there were extraordinary circumstances the court would bend reopen the case and by the very nature of the rules of the rule sixty be reopening the case in any circumstance that has been previously heard on appeal would be undoing of the later appeal done by the higher court nd the court was neither concerned with the issue of finale or accuracy and was satisfied that those could be addressed with the district courts within the district court's discretion issues that were previously addressed on appeal in the it within the appellate mandate and in this case mr chambers is presenting issues and facts that were not covered before the court in the issue of the  and mr know all refused to contact of refused to reply to those contacts and also mr north filed a motion in the district court that the district court construe that as a a motion trust counsel and mr nolan appeared in that case and reiterated the fact that he was no longer representing mr chambers because his responsibilities terminated at the conclusion of the district court's proceedings even though he did not file a notice of withdrawal and he specific believe that no one has completely abandon mr chambers and mr chambers but then be proceeding with with his new counsel that have been with this new counsel that's been appointed but it was it was the clerk in this court clerk's office in this court who said that he knew his counsel from district court would flower whatever was necessary correct john or mr knoll contacted this court's proceed mr chambers contacted this court's pro se clerk at multiple times and each time that he contacted the pro se for the pro se clerk inform mr chambers that mr chambers would be unable to file a brief supporting his application for a certificate of appeal ability because he was still represented by counsel and if mr chamber  wanted to withdraw what was pending in this court his and his requests for certificate of appeal ability while by mr nall and then mr knoll never withdrew just told mr chambers that application for a certificate of appeal ability and denied and so mr chambers raised the issue of mr knowles abandonment with the district court in his sixty motion however the district court i do not reject america take some action striking more but that seems to be the only option you have he would add well the other option mr chambers would have would be through the sixty motion through the within the district  discretion under rule sixty b would necessarily be open and any decision decided by a higher court by it by its very nature because if of pace's been previously decided on appeal it would concerned he's been paid and his duties are a criminal justice actually administered by whom it's administered by this court under this court's criminal justice act plan and the criminal justice act plan specifies that for defendants who are appointed counsel but the counsel needs to withdraw and in in flours this court noted that despite the consistent use of petitioners and defendants in the criminal justice act and that requirement also applied to ha lawyer and why there should be any impediment well your honor it wasn't that mr nor mr chambers believed he needed to get rid of nal he he was under the impression from if that would be that would be that satisfied chambers that would satisfy chambers because the primary relief that he's seeking is the ability to file a brief with the support and present his argument well that's functionally withdrawing mandate correct your honor and mr chambers did submit a request to this court to withdraw the mandate and in that argument mr chambers presented it as an issue of whether there was a clerical order with the with the and so and so that is why mr chambers then went to the went to the district court for the the rule sixty motion to reopen the case so that he would have the chance to submit the brief and and  and based on based on standard oil in this court's precedent out we do not think it would be impossible for the for the district court to reopen the case to to allow a fresh appeal responders from a pro se clerk i've seen it's prison lingo i think in the library at most prisons they give themselves those names oh i see  over whether whether relief would be really warranted and in reopening the case good grief i mean it's a lot he's here just for us to the first ourselves on reopening the mandate that would be that all he wants to do is file a brief and his request for a may please the court second phillips on behalf of the united states your honors mr chambers runs into two main problems the first is that rule sixty does not grant and district court the right to tell this court to  allow him to refile brief in fact he just said the relief he is seeking is to file a brief in support of his certificate of appeal ability with this court there's no absolute right to have that filed it's simply something he with a letter that said something along the lines of what do i need to do the pro se clerk said nothing you represented he then went through some stages to say hey wait i'm not represented he sent my point was if there had been tendered but not cloud we could strike it are big and so he did file i mean he has filed a brief with when he filed for a motion to recall the mandate he did file something saying what his arguments generally would have been  and he's right that the motion three called a mandate is titled the clerical error but in all intents and purposes it's sets forth the problem that he's currently advocating which is that he didn't get a chance to file the street it's worth pointing out to the not filing a brief in support of a certificate of appeal billeted is very different from not filing either a notice of appeal or a brief in a regular case because in a request for a certificate of appeal ability this court still looks at the record and looks at the motions and determines whether or not a certificate of appeal ability is warranted so he has the filing that he intends to to proper has to not rely on any new arguments because of course those arguments would be waived but also somehow detail the arguments that this court has already reviewed in denying him a certificate of appeal ability and that's the other prob says that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment order proceeding and yes that there is sixty six deals with equitable relief surplusage your position that he has in effect filed a brief with us our position is that the relief p c s the way to get that relief is through a moat emotion to this court to recall the mandate explain this and in fact he tried that he did not work so then he went back to the record denied that's right so initially he filed his attorney filed the notice of right of appeal this court obviously does what it does and review the whole record he wants to sort of couch that is of rubber stamp well if you know it and no briefing is of whether it be attorney error or pro se or care it doesn't matter was not his error i wasn't able to file this certificate this briefing in support is your only the the way to get relief from that is through motion to recall the mandate and in fact the when he filed an earlier fifty nine emotion the prosecutor told him actually what you should do is file a motion recall the mandate he did that and it was  have mr chambers would have been hard pressed to to establish under the motion to withdraw the mandate that so what's left for chambers to do if anything  at this point mr mr chambers is relying on an reopening of the case under rule sixty b or the score allowing him to to file a motion to file a brief supporting his application for a certificate appeal of appeal ability also seeking notice of that district court those that those were before this court the score both rejected he did tender anything he just wrote and then he did it he did present he did present the reasons requesting a certificate of appeal ability in those documents however the difference of standard of proof the burden of proof in both of those motions as opposed to the burden of proof and in requesting a certificate of appeal ability made it made it nearly made it hard mr chambers was hard pressed to receive the really that he wanted under those two motion