in jail yes if you knock that period out does that mean she gets a speedy trial dismissal i believe so yes because we're talking about six hundred thirty days here in which she thinks the critical what was the basis for exclusion under thirty one sixty one eight for that one hundred twenty days or so the one hundred twenty one days was basically predicated on the mental health competency examination which the court properly ruled on so the argument is basically they could have done a mental health exam a whole lot sooner if they could have found well they did do a whole lot sooner as a matter of fact when they did find her in late march i  twenty sixth when the mental health examination report was submitted to the courts we're talking about approximately a stand of fifty some odd days from start to finish amounted no more then three days from start to finish and as i stated the defendant there was held in custody for approximately six hundred thirty days the problem with this case is that there are a lot of failings in this case it seems like the whole system croaked out and as we have a defense attorney who withdrew from this case after having this client for approximately seventeen months he withdrew school sponte without a written motion at the time of the change of plea hearing because the defendant did not want to take the plea it was followed up by another defense attorney who even after she was completely aware of the letters that were sent to the district court ch the first letter she sent was made part of the record on january seventh two thousand and chill and the second letter that was sent was filed in that certainly collateral proceedings which time some others are going to be treated testifies that what went on precisely an actor possibly get i don't know maybe counsel and on well and i'm not going to know that because she doesn't have to testify in this case that's correct but there are certain facts that this court can consider that have been develop other that is correct because one point he burst in for that well the not as to the asking for too much time because he asked for ninety days one time with respect to the pleading ago she mentioned she won ninety days in thirty days in addition to that to discuss the plea which he defended but probably what is most offensive here is the fact that two weeks prior does not or should not join the ranks of the prosecution when a defendant wants to assert the right to go to trial i agree that because you know it's in cases where a lawyer was honor bound to  where the client authorized the lawyer to say that the client would agree to something the lawyer and it goes in good faith ad purporting to have authority and having actual akbari and then the client i can imagine so many possibilities it's just hard to start it's like the other week to a lesser charge that she's guilty of the united states marshal is a part of the government justice the for america yes and what i would suggest is that the time that should be held against the government should be the matter of the roughly forty days from the time april the nineteenth which  not that a competency test was taking place but that she wasn't being produced for the competency test because they can find a yes and unfortunately it appears from their record that there had been a filing error a clerical error within if you stuck with responsibility for one hundred twenty days that would mean that you'd lose under the speedy trial act but for the issue of the defense not making a motion to dismiss under the speedy trial act is that correct ye we have absolutely no bad thing in this case so the issue of the transportation at most i submit is negligence and there were no cases that i was  the united states attorney's office was unaware that the defendant had not been transported to things like defense counsel who we were relying on the united states marshal to transport the defendant to the facility and we first became aware of it when defense counsel products for generally ninth circuit law is if you don't make a motion to the suit if the defense doesn't make a motion to dismiss the speedy trial violation just waived so the statute is out of the victory just look at the constitution however the defense has stated some authority it says that even though the ninth circuit law is generally you don't look at ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal wait for the hey b s there was an exception and speedy trial authorities that the defendant cited in the great grief do they stand for  case because the right issues that are raised in this case were not properly right at the trial court well let me make sure that i make myself clear there was a sentence and i didn't have time to read the cases  or should even can dismiss the case under thirty one sixty one even though there was no motion to dismiss below yes i think however that this record is not sufficient