opposing affidavit or you just what is that a mistake was in a statement i mean i was a simply to reiterate in the facts as found by the district court i thought frankly in our factual set up we were required to do that if i had my point is that in reading the content of the e mails the e mail suggests that before he even took the plea he was told about this forty eight to seventy two month range and where after at the play person hears this different range and so i'm just asking you do you period in time when the sixteen month deal was on the table therefore was undisturbed there was nothing in the record that says that he was aware of what the guidelines were at that t five motion brief and affidavit attached e mails to quite a bit more than what most individuals do in the circumstance and those those filings were diametrically opposed  buys him that the government had a sixteen month deal on the table i think wrister a says at the end of his affidavit he has no recollection of receiving any binding sixteen months you know but he does talk generally about what he typically did in preparation there was one ok my point was that given the fact that rhodes has that recollection of having received the sixteen month offer at whatever period of time he doesn't mention in the affidavit when it was is there anything to be intuited or inferred from the fact that at least according to mr bones recollection he's he's had this sort of sixteen month offer if you will on his mind for some period of time getting no you're from that from his e mails and it's it's pretty clear to me that he's complaining about the fact that he was subjected to a much higher guideline range on the back end of this thing than he would have been otherwise and so i think the day what happened here is the then you can you can summarily dismiss the thing but this is a little bit more complicated just because of all the factual disputes and and we're having a discussion about conflicts within mr von file so if you don't know why why he ultimately did it might actually work to his benefit with respect to his lack of information at the time of the sixteen did not have to know this or hasn't exactly had this paradigm in front of at least in terms of a public recommendation offered that would go to the court without a specific period of time what is it or what is there in the record from which we could infer that that reference to being told about the guidelines really refer to the period in time when he was informed of this sixty month offer you know there's nothing directly in the record i think with the record shows is that there's certainly no doubt that during the course of  entirely certain isn't that the point and for the judge for the district court judge you have credited one affidavit versus his affidavit that said categorically i wasn't old well you know how can that how can that be your honor it's more than that because it's coupled with the sentencing proceedings colloquy that these are factors that bolster the judge's discretionary decision to avoid an evidentiary hearing that to by his former counsel that specifically state at the time he received the prior to sixteen months binding plea agreements that they had discussed the guidelines issues then with and given estimates and he said and his affidavit said that didn't happen isn't that what would have happened if he said anything about that well your honor i think what's striking is that when you look at his affidavit he states that he was i think his word was flabbergasted teachers attorney reciting this guidelines us and it enough for the first time according to but the transcript doesn't reflect that if you would assume that someone who was flabbergasted about their tourney saying things they never heard before we jump in and pipe but that makes perfect sense right if the only point in time we were referring right so he comes in now after having heard and says i was never told well you know it is the government have the record to refute that right because it's it's  at various points in time there are various offers on the table they get withdrawn from for whatever reasons that aren't important the point here is that apple point one hundred sixty what was on the table there was time this information with regard to the guidelines for the back then during that period of time but there was no recommendation i understand this catch on and i think that certainly it's unclear there's an calculation at all during the course of their efforts in teaching is that your understanding absolutely your honor that your understanding is that then your position that the record before the district court so was sufficient for the district court to say you know i ultimate plea not the sixteen on itself so i understand the disconnect but i think the point is that the statements he made under oath during that plea colloquy and then the rest are one of the factors that the district court took into consideration when it made its discretionary letter that mr von had filed for his sentencing and extorted him for a finding that he was minimizing his responsibility you bet he wasn't accepting for responsibility for his actions and that the district court may very well have like this is that a reason we should send it back or is there sufficient evidence in this record that would satisfy the author factors or not it's your honor and you mentioned this before and i think this is an important point because we are by no means performance and therefore never had to reach awkward well i wouldn't say that it needs to be sent back for the purposes of an evidentiary hearing i don't think that the district court needs an evidentiary hearing to decide itself whether it would have accepted mr yes everything this should that not give us a pause because the district court says well gee you know he didn't speak up when i asked about his legal representation so must have been really happy with  we have a statement to the effect that you know he was told to just be quiet and say yes your honor that certainly is not the first time a twenty to fifteen tribal parent has made that claim that their attorney told them to ultimate determination of the guideline was a hundred thirty five months guideline ranges ninety seven months one of the disconnects in the case seems to be what degree or amount of disparate this is necessary before we can determine that a guideline calculation from coun enough but that's not what we have here we have the intention in the act it wasn't cold at all and that qualifies as ineffective your honor we actually read his contention to be more that he wasn't told the maximum guidelines exposure he faced at sentencing not so much that he was never told whatsoever what he was facing and i would cross reference your honor his brief that he filed with exact date but if you look at appendix  specifically cites to the paragraph in his affidavit working makes these allegations and it's under in the context of him not receiving a maximum estimated guidelines calculation should he proceed to trial not under the kings of i didn't receive any guidelines affidavit clarifies the record to a degree that it or could make that decision but certainly not where there's this kind of a