well here the next united states versus was charged with are contacts conspiracy in count one thing and count three a reference to that right in the indictment yes in the indictment yes and the robbery the robbery no go ahead i was going to i was going to say in his allocution he acknowledges that they were robbing drug dealers well that that was that was the objective of the robbery i think dominguez benito's which deals with you know whether a rule eleven violation where the violation was that that the defendant wasn't wasn't warned that he couldn't was george pleased to go to the judge didn't follow the government's recommendation you know it's based on traditional efficiency and i think what we have here is a lot different than those arguments and you know it's just it's it's we're factual basis to think he satisfies the drug song of the statute which is not called into question by davis or barry and i'm i'm i understand that and i pointed to exactly exactly i mean it makes a difference there or words in regards to drugs if you're saying that and i really i respectfully disagree with you because of the there are some there are there are definitely there are certainly facts in the in the present report that so we come back to the critical question which is how do you manage to show argument that your client should not be treated different from ship pals i understand that the putting that aside on the record of his guilty plea and unobjective pre sentence report how do you argue that your client would not have now i i don't know that i what would be the basis to read one hundred and twenty four see conviction yeah you're saying he's not looking to withdraw his plea pleaded guilty to that did me yes he did judge ok now you know i mean i don't understand how you're looking to do anything other than vacate that conviction in the dryer i apologize i think i was i think i misunderstood the question ok so now it goes back to the district court looking to the record as a whole it is very clear that the defendant intent was to plead guilty to count three as charged in the indictment which included both predicates the hobbs conspiracy in the narcotics  can stand is because the defendant cannot and indeed you know mr contro faris fairly carefully avoided saying that there was a reasonable probability that but for the error the defendant would not have entered the plea and that is for all of the reasons identified in the new start namely the record here overwhelmingly establishes that the defendant was intended to plead guilty to count three as charged in the indictment more importantly it makes clear the defendant didn't perceive any particular significance between whether help free was predicated on the hub nd seriously or the narcotics offense and the fact that the defendant didn't perceive any difference to his position from the distinction is made clear by all of the different ways in which the is adopted without objection which includes all sorts of facts that would have been sufficient to support correcting this error and more specifically predicating count three on count one in the plea agreement and district court also made her own one that he would have done so because he still would have gotten the same deal he still would have gotten the exact same guidelines range he would have gotten the exact same mandatory minimum and most importantly he still would have avoided the ten year ten year mandatory minimum that  ere you know the defendant was charged with five co defendants and yet the defendant was the st to plead guilty he pled guilty almost a month before any of his co defendants did and several months before trial his sentencing argument focused the district court on the sixty month mandatory minimum one count three that he had to go she hated for an argument that would have been foreclosed had he chosen to reject the plea and gone to trial had he gone to trial he would have faced a fifteen year mandatory minimum which obviously would be a very different thing  at the plea proceeding his counsel was asked if he knew of any valid reason the defendant should not be guilty or any valid defense that would prevail counsel at trial defense counsel said you know all additional facts that strongly support the notion that had about the different outcome in schapelle and you know just a couple of things on schapelle you know st you know as was noted schapelle is factually different schapelle did not specifically allocute to narcotics in the way that honor  did but the schapelle panel also did not have the benefit of either supplemental briefing on the davis opinion or more recently the panel's published opinion in the start both of which we believe might have resulted in a different outcome in that anything otherwise i'll rest thank you thanks to both sides the court will reserve decision