had no access preclusion you have to understand what you're asking here if you know as you know that when you ask for something like this you've got to tell us how you're going to cabaniss because you know it's just a one year statute of limitation right in there and to give access to case why to give explanations so retroactivity the suspension clause all of those things which we hardly understand you know i mean why wouldn't someone just look at this and say ok it year statute of limitations i'm a notice on this and i've got to tell gently pursue it you know i mean what's the limit on the case law that you want to provide provide well i mean why don't we just give everyone a wire and tell him how to  he then tried to pursue a rule thirty two point one s proceeding in state court thinking that that's what he needed to do to exhaust its claims and filed a rule thirty two point one as proceeding in march of two thousand which would have been within one year of the april of april nine hundred ninety nine had he known that he did not need to first pursue that rule thirty two point one and we can assume that he might have filed his twenty two fifty four in march that's your main argument exactly he well our main argument it's too awful to fold he did not have can case law to tell him that the a t p applied to him and how it applied to his case he might have been able to to have to have interpreted the case law and applied it to his case and and the best way possible and that question just to case by just the bare minimum what amount of case hundred four and then it's at this time that we're saying that the arizona department of corrections law library and it's an adequate these prevented him from finding out how his claims were precluded what he needed to do to exhaust his claims later that the statu another prisoner that he had an avenue really of relief but first he had to file a thirty two point one of proceeding he had no way of determining that he didn't have access he didn't have a right to a thirty two point one a proceeding and he should factual predicate and that's detrimental to their client because even assuming there's a deficiency with the case law not being in the library after august fourth one thousand nine hundred seventy even assuming that there needs to be a causal nexus for there to be either or equitable tolling and a future act basically mr bryant never even endeavored to research this particular question so it can even constitute cause but to answer your question no prisoner whose conviction became final before the a d p i took effect and knew what to do but they all nonetheless they were able to file their hades petitions and have it considered by the court and as a result this court as as every other court in the country has how that there would be a year now i cited shannon vs newland and mentor versus back in a footnote in my opening very for the proposition that the mere fact that something might be futile doesn't constitute an break which is essentially what other prisoners did and some of the cases that i cited i believe it lopez and keying a second circuit case and i think a tensor case the appropriate petitioners who made those arguments so the mere fact that he would time during which there was no case law that determined how the statute applied to people whose convictions became final morning sex and we're also talking about a petitioner who didn't even realize that there was a statue of limitations until august of two thousand  so we're basically talking about a theoretical exercise and loose vs case of the supreme court says it's not just some theoretical efficiency but we have to show actual injury and here when the defendant has a statue of limitations he knows you know whereas before i had all day forever and a day to file this now i have only a year and he very easily could have filed this but as i pointed out in my brief he had no idea that there was even a statue of limitations so he never needed a case well because he right in his case he did nothing so he's not entitled to then say i mean there's you know he didn't know about anything he didn't do anything right and if he had access to something that would have said one year right and nothing in the department corrections policy prohibited him from being able to you know consult outside sources in fact he was even able to get a book that had the statute of limitations and he had in his own possession and yet he didn't follow i think the real reason judge that he didn't comply with the statue of limitations was because he didn't act he didn't act with due diligence now counsel just argued that he exercised due diligence because he filed p c r as in state court but that was all in like in one thousand nine hundred four and he has to exercise diligence during motion for reconsideration of the tunnel of his motion recall the mandate he didn't have anything pending in any court you know for quite some time i mean we're talking about a five and a half year period and even after the arizona supreme court motion to recall amend it was important to him because he allegedly had the a d p in mind or he wanted sauces his federal claims that's not what he said in his pleadings what he was saying was i ran into an inmate who had the same lawyer and was able to recall the mandate his idea was to make sure he could we litigate the claims in state court he was even thinking about the d p a because according to his own statements to the judge duncan during the evidence for a hearing here even though the statute of limitations even existed paralegals that were available to the end mates and there is no evidence that he ever asked for our legal assistance so basically it's something that he could have asked anyone at the department of corrections the librarian i mean there's nothing there i mean he indicated at fifteen there's nothing in the record you getting that he sought this type of of the systems i do want to talk about one other thing i do take issue with counsel arguing that the statue of limitations wasn't available to him continuing to order the federal reporters the supreme court reporters the u s cia and i also had wes group testify that they were sending the u s cia the pocket parts and the supreme court reporters and basically what happened was i mean all the sadness came in the only evidence that it wasn't there i want to ask you take a look at the reporter's transcript eleven to two thousand and two page thirty one i think it's s t r forty four page forty four magistrate judge duncan asked the petitioner here basically was that where the books they are in the library and he said if you knew where to look they probably were that's the only evidence that he did not have that the libraries did not provide him with case law that's it might it might as well file now get it in and let the court resolve that question and that's all it's all chasing requires is that he has an opportunity to set its claims thank you very much i think i show that here well i have i don't quite understand the question are you referring to the magistrates finding that there were just documents to record all of those those documents being available there is  he did not adopt he assumed without describing that there was the statute first appeared in the library in april of ninety nine there was no adoption or modification that the statute appeared any earlier than that therefore there are no findings and know look at the evidence before this court i think and i'm going to refer to my reply brief there is no evidence that the statutes although received in the in the warehouse never made it into the shelves and stayed in the shelves especially considering mr bryant's testimony that the entire library for a period of a year or two was all contained in one cardboard box and and so did anyone have additional questions all right thank you for your argument this matter