the issue before the in bank court was limited so i went back to look at the panel opinion and the also the in bank opinion and authority from other circuits that says employers pre selection of a job candidate in violation of its own for speeders requiring fair consideration of qualified undeniably relevant to the question of discriminatory intent and operates to discredit the employer's proffered explanation for its employment thought the supervisor originally was going to do a desk or then someone from the human resources department said no you want to advertise this so anybody  your client there was more process introduced into the decision making then there was going to be how how does that disadvantage your client out that foresight just by looking at this itself doesn't indicate anything fishy but we argue your honor must you all of these evidence in conjunction for example one of the panel members of the two person panel misfortune wasn't information technology specialist and she should have never been on the panel it would be like an i c specialist if you think the next lawyer of the law it will be that it would have been as i understood your response that it could have been perfectly lawful no discrimination for the office to have decided violation of a regulation or office and that's what i was looking for a citation advertisements to fit the person they alternately chose and all of this in conjunction with one another definitely and of course they can infer discrimination from back and we would nondiscriminatory reason here and point the failed to show that it was pretext judge rogers if i can begin with your colorfully with my colleagues about where the policy or how this somehow deviated from the normal practice not following your normal procedures here there's no indication that they didn't follow the normal procedures as judge griffiths question noted any deviation from the option that mr may hock had to simply interview the two candidates was a deviation which created new people looking at the process and an additional layer of process for the applicants and then i would emphasize that well the panel opinion poll stead did highlight pre selection the on bond court stated that pre selection would not be maybe six employees but miss carter who's the one suggested not using a desk audit but instead having an open process stated that there were two employees at the same band level and thus eligible for the promotion and so they would only have been two employees eligible within the office i think so and i think outside people may have been able to apply but these are the only two applicants as i understand the argument d here in only issue before the in bank court had to do with an evidentiary standard not what we're talking about here today and if you look at the panel i will is as you know as appellant pointed out in justifying the selection there was reliance on data that was not even available at the time for fiscal year occurred and the training which was critical was only available to one person and that person  argument and what is your response based on our standard of review and the evidence before the discord judge here yes your honor i'll answer that in a number of parts and if i could actually start with a point about the fiscal year two thousand and eleven data miss park scares me miss lewis did not take issue with the district court's reliance on the fiscal year two thousand and eleven ratings until the reply brief they both received a summary score of three however in the six individual components mr gotten received a four in four of the components and he received a three in two of the components and miss lewis received a three in all of the components a their supervisor and one of the things about the job posting that that the panel opinion highlighted was on was they copied and pasted the job description of the male applicant who was ultimately chosen i think he did the lobbying side of the organization and she did the she was an i c specialist in the security area she was we think perfectly qualified to serve on the rating panel and we don't think that miss lewis has has put in evidence calling into question her expertise in an office of six people you don't have to have the panel come from you know the two people in that office if you're working in the same area so i don't think that the use of miss boykin in the panel suggests anything other than having someone who had not previously worked or supervise these two people also rate their applications as to including you know lean six sigma training and things like that in the job description the story here begins with mr may hock took over as supervisor of this office he recognized that mr gos performing above his grade he suggested a desk audit miss carter said we should have an open application because there are two people at this level and so looking at the skills that mr dawson has when you're looking to create a new position that fits those skills is not nefarious because you're identified these are the type of skills we want and in the e mail he talks about someone like mr dawson or someone like mr gough and when he's outlining those still so we just don't think that she has put together enough in the mosaic with each of those pieces of evidence and again the use of the panel allowed for one person who had reviewed them and it allowed for looking at the final fiscal year two thousand and ten applications but also the knowledge and assessment questions on which both panel members ranked mr goss and considerably higher than miss l s if the court has other questions i'm happy to address them i think i would make a couple minor factual points miss lewis says that she wasn't offered the green belt training but she acknowledged in her deposition of knowledge she never requested training in lean six sigma through that system another employee was later provided lean six sigma training so there the evidence the record doesn't show that only ever provided this training it doesn't show that aside from the one time in which everyone in the office asked for the training and they did select mr graef and that miss lewis ever requested the  certainly hasn't been attempting to undercut the reason tied to any evidence of discrimination and i guess i would point to i think it's three in africa versus washington hospital center which was also  reason she's just pointed out that this process began with acknowledging that mr gostin with a high performing employee has nothing further i'm happy to rest thank you thank you through our normal procedures meaning he didn't go through the correct procedures in the channels of giving mr goss and the only greenbelt training opportunity at the office at the time the senior leader was  any and all requests for giving out framing opportunity should have gone directly to her and she would be the one making the decision mr south and decided even before mr dawson has started to sign at the office of the treasury of the defendant even when the evidence of support of the defendant was clearly very weak so