i haven't i haven't i found on the case which obviously makes our case a little bit different but i think the record is clear here that respectfully the court meant misstep or hindered the scope of its discretion because it didn't fully comprehend in my view certainly has within its rule sixteen powers the power to circum preparation for that my client was in prison that time i was unable to communicate with her in these are things that clearly would have delayed the trial and affected her ability to defend herself but there was no request for additional time in regards to allowing the amendment and my memory is consistent with judge to see him as i can't remember a case especially in a case governed by the rules  in your principal prejudice is the lack of time to prepare yet you don't tell the district court that you need more time to prepare do you need to suggest me on the record that the district last issue never touched on it is the due process issue again the government has it's well established the government's required to prove by clear convincing and unequivocal evidence that  wanted to put on that evidence in the district court but let me or be there was evidence in the record showing interest in you leading circumstance when the judge did not refer to it in his order i think it's a just you know destitute she's the mother of five children who need seven significant interfamily problems as well as financial difficulties and as the court will note the emotionally psychologically and also from a cultural standpoint my client is vietnamese and there are different cultural factors at play here in terms of you know what might be culturally obviously i don't fully comprehend you know the nuances of the vietnamese culture but from my understanding and that is indeed the case and terms of establishing her criminal intent that would certainly be a factor that would w on that moreover there are certain issues i wasn't i wasn't involved in the underlying her underlying criminal case but having reviewed the record there are certain issues legal issues here as well relating to extenuating circumstance of evidence and you refuse the opportunity when you point us to a police report that was the police report is governments are going to tend that's he or one twenty five that's that's the  arguing to judge that the police report having come in and having contains some evidence of extenuating circumstances that shifted the burden to the united states government to prove that which is at issue in this matter and properly granted government's motion for partial partial the applicable found to have a lack of moral character if they've committed unlawful acts that adversely reflect against their moral character in this case mr mayo never raised the issue of extenuating circumstances until the summary judgment hearing and inaccurate he never requested judge shaab for continuance of the trial or for additional discovery period to open up the discovery phase if you will to allow him to explore that potential defense if you well i don't think that would have been an affair approached i mean the government comes in with a very very late motion to a man it's a critical moment and essentially even though i don't think the request on the record you didn't have a trial and that you didn't have discovery on the government's not obligated to create all its theories at in the beginning at that point we believe that we have sufficient evidence to go forward on those documents related to a different question that i asked why wasn't that scary available  trying to argue with the court i take a different take on that that your honor we bring the unlawful acts could we have brought it at the initial time that we filed a complaint we could have brought her but because we didn't bring it doesn't mean that the district court's decision in this case allowing us to all then the complaint and it was wrong or i'm not i'm not even if it's obvious question let me if i can go back to your initial question two questions back you asked about the extenuating circumstances in this pretrial conference report he will setting forth what our issues are going to be you know any concessions or stipulation how soon thereafter did you depose for joe your honor soon after we learned we filed a at the finally track conference i raised the issue of having is dank witness we sent a letter to the court requesting upon the vagaries of state law yes or no if i can't the the constitution requires a uniform application of naturalization the rule of good moral character is a uniform all across one case might not be considered as a but let me put it this way that the same crime in one case can constitutionally be considered differently in another case well i don't know because i think a crime is a crime  honor but i think what is important here is that we measure character by measuring conduct and an inquiry officer an officer who is there to terminate whether this apple can't has good moral character has the statute in mind i e the statute that the individual is required to establish good moral character right now and it's it's undisputed your honor that this dank crimes in this case the crime of arson and willful and i assume you timely notified the government i did in october of two thousand and three that rachel would be a witness that's correct that's when they deposed her greg yes and at that deposition they learn learned that she would say i was the one that