the honorable united states court of appeals for the st circuit is now in session all persons having any business before this honorable court may give their attendance and they shall be heard god save the united states of america and this honorable court they start thank you are an honor this case is essentially about mr adams right to be free from unlawful government intrusion into his private will this case does and i'm going to develop the facts as i raise east each issue he was initially well he was charged by way of a superseding indictment in count one with the conspiracy to just  possess with intent to distribute and to distribute various controlled substances the time period alleged in that conspiracy is significant the government alleges that the  numerous motions to suppress in this matter along with a motion to withdraw his guilty plea he would like me to have the core focus on just a couple of the motions that were filed on his behalf and specifically one of the motions that was filed was a motion to process the search of cell phones that were recovered from an automobile that he had been operating and those phones were seized pursuant to a warrant to search that vehicle now this is a reason but it's my understanding that there was any any information that was on those phones was not used to trial is that not correct well this matter did not go to trial your honor mr adams pled shortly before trial but pursuant to the plea the other men submitted a statement of facts the statement of facts did not contain any evidence concerning those cell phones so for a search warrants how candid the cells themselves lead to other information that i do not know it was not apparent from the record iran or and it wasn't  contents of the phones and discovery your honor i was not attorney in the lower court some discovery was provided to me but it did not appear within  i received from the lower court not not in the body of the motions nor in any of the transcripts but i believe that this the suppression of the cell phones was part of a foundation which led to they're alleging that i mean the whole reason why they want to service the phone was because of the quantities of the phone i believe your honor and just that fact we've suggested they believe that people who are in earn gauged in drug trafficking thank you so you try it what are you saying that the fact of the multiple phone should be suppressed or the contents of the bomb well the contents of the phone your honor night in view of that that might have affected his  calculus if he knew that they would have access to the content of the phones at trial that would make him more likely to plea if he knew that that was suppressed it would be less likely that the theory your honor he tried to withdraw his guilty plea and again there were a lot of motions just press filed and he had continuously asserted the right that he wanted to go to trial he says that shortly before it fell and shortly before jury selection he was presenting it with a new offer to result the case and the record indicates that shar and those prior offers had all been rejected by mr adams art but it but number words this wasn't an offer out of the blue this was a continuing series of negotiations between the government and the who indicated to the court in his motion to withdraw that he had only had approximately ninety minutes to consider that plea and he is he has alleged that he is legally court but he had said that he was legally innocent and those are my words i'm not quoting verbatim and also his lawyer had argued to the court that he had consistently claimed to specific quote the truth of specific allegations that it's correct your honor and he is alleging that it was not an intelligent play he knew what was going on and that and there's no were eleven violation all you know the i's were dotted the t s were crossed but he indicated that certain evidence wasn't terminated but in some of the affidavits submitted by law enforcement it created the appearance that the informant was available to testify and w jenks material or the lawyer received jencks material shortly before the change of play and that information had not been shared with mr adams and the fact that he didn't know that there were other factual basis that would support his claims that it couldn't have been an intelligent play and i know that in an out itself the fact that he didn't have the benefit of all discovery that in and of itself is not enough to warrant a person to vacate their guilty plea but when you look at all the factors that have been raised in terms of his guilty he was afraid of a life sentence he didn't have considerable time well the material what was the specific material that was new that he received from my understanding it was refit complete your answer please it was it was joint investigation and mr adams alleges that some of the statements in particular statements that reveal that informants had been using drugs more and then then believed and had been terminated not only terminated but on a vailable because the an agent had lo contact with this informant that that was important information that he that would have influenced his to his his guilty plea claiming that he would not of the entered this guilty plea had he known all that information in advance but i thought he did know it it they asked because it was in one of his motions well one of the motions deals with but this initial motions your  honor dealt with affidavits by an agent midhir rose who worked for the bid for the police department announced after he pled guilty his lawyer brought a motion to reconsider the judge's denials of those rulings and that motion he mentioned that there was a federal agent richard hatch that had more information the informant that one of the informants that was involved in the case any of the questions from my colleagues no i can question which is good morning maybe the court can block the united states there are a number of th amendment cleans that have been raised by the defendant here and i think that it might be helpful to the court to identify precisely which ones the government views as weight and which ones now the government views as appropriate for resolution on the merits the st is the initial stop of the vehicle that was brief in this matter the search of the bones themselves the government views as appropriately preserved for resolution the search of the apartment in connecticut was preserved and appropriately briefed the challenge for the arrest warrants or the arrest warrant which was only the subject of challenge below in the motion for reconsideration which came months after th in the same manner that it was presented here on appeal below they challenged only the probable cause to support the no knock provision of that warrant they did not challenge probable cause as to the himself to execute the they didn't challenge the probable cause to enter the hotel room generally they only challenge probable cause as to the no knock provision of that war and so any provision that was preserved below it was preserved in the conditional plea but the government would say that the briefing on that issue was undeveloped before this court and therefor unit which was a challenge although they did not reach the franks issue after that war but as to the substance of the probable cause based on the effort expended in the process a brief the government views that as preserving argued before this court so i think that leaves out where we stand procedurally with respect to the issues raised in yes yes we did you i through the government by reason of those warrants on government apparently thought that was a good investigatory to end the investigation proceeds from from that point evidence all of those connections in this case or is there evidence of those connections because i couldn't tell from what i know about the case at this point what the government didn't discover as a result of the cell phones and answering judge so you could you explain to us why that information wasn't disclosed there are five minutes remaining th information was disclosed your honor the the results of the searches of the cell phones were produced to the defendant in discovery after his arrest and indictment and in terms of of how to determine what if any impact in the search of those phones had on the ongoing investigation i would i would suggest and i laid this out in the factual section of my brief following that after following the car essentially on that car stopped they did not obtain drugs they did not obtain useful information from the cell phones they sensually the investigation dies down and it's not until the following up to burke when the informant again started to affidavit where he summarizes the investigation from october until december and explains how they essentially regenerated the investigation and so the information from the cell phones was produced but it was not meaningful and they absence of information from those cell phones in any of the subsequent warrants throughout the investigations i think i to questions on that one for purposes of the conditional plea the consequence of the suppression arguably be that he wouldn't have pled right correct so we usually take a pretty deferential position as to the defendant calculus if they could press evidence whether that would affect their calculation and i guess why we shouldn't do that here in other words he got the atoms of the surge he makes an assessment of whether that evidence would be a problem trial so that's going to affect his clique occupation he wants to suppress it he made the leak conditional on the suppression succeeding if it succeeds and he's right about it should be suppressed why wouldn't that provide a basis for concluding it have to put forward in other words for us to assess how it would affect his league occupation well i would argue that if you look at his motion to withdraw and you look at his testimony during the hearing on the motion to withdraw he does not articulate that the mondeo suppression motion at that point doesn't that he wins the suppression yes but the defendant's calculation is the strength of the government's case is not outcome determinative with respect to a motion to withdraw no they're talking about the motion to withdraw i'm talking about the conditional plea conditional on a suppression motion we're trying to figure out what the impact of suppressing the phones would be but in a touch of a conditional plea why wouldn't we say well he's made the judgment that he saw what you got on the phone and he nonetheless wanted to condition the plea on suppressing in then if he's right that it should be suppressed why wouldn't we assume he knows what he's doing he therefore wouldn't have pled so i think under the terms of the conditional plea which is predicated on the district court suppression of the cell phones if this court were to find on that the information from the cell phones should have been suppressed  phones if the if the if the search warrants for the five cell homes had been had been a roni asli granted his conditional the condition for his police would not be materially relevant to how likely the informant would be to be available that could have meaningfully affected the decision to withdraw yes thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on that there was no new evidence st of all it was clear from the face of the warrants themselves that the arrest warrant omitted the fact that this confidential informant had been terminated the warrant to search the hotel room which was issued the following day contained the information that that informant had been terminated by law enforcement so on the face of the warrants themselves which were produced early on and were the subject of cochins to suppress mr adams was aware and should have been aware that that confidential informant had been terminated with respect to the james material defense counsel was given the then who can tiriel were produced three weeks before jury selection showed in early may and on mr adams and his attorney had three weeks to review those materials before he ultimately pled guilty so there's simply no basis for him to suggest that that information was not available to come at the time th