good morning your honor says my name is bikini pan and i'm representing john jeffers the appellant in this matter i would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal when the district court ruled on this matter on the withdrawal of mr at the time mr jeffers entered into his plea with the government he had been his bail he had been rearrested and his bail was subject to being revoked a few days later he entered into his plea agreement and as part of that was not part of the plea agreement this was a misunderstanding of mr jeffers and his attorney mr scott's only apply standard contract law to the interpretation of plea agreements i don't believe that this is the we have to interpret a plea agreement because we are in that we're not at that point we're looking for a fit for essence of what you're arguing is that something was promised your client that was not delivered with the promise was contained in the plea agreement and there's no mention of colloquy in which the judge mentioned that asked the u s attorney you know are you going to seek forfeiture of the properties mr jeffers at that point in time thought they were referring to the collateral properties instead they were actually referring to the properties that any properties mr jeffers might have obtained through his conduct and at that point in time the u s attorney said no we don't have any any idea of doing it at this particular time so it was understanding were misunderstood and you know during the withdraw motion it was discussed extensively with raul prior to the withdrawal motion there were probably discussions between the attorneys but no with attorney client but no there was nothing on the record in former counsel when the counsel of record informing the court that your client have this impression but that it was a mistaken impression is that correct that's correct but then it was brought before the district court in conjunction with the which was cited by the court that said you waive issue if it's not presented in the papers or i think hearing that's probably but i couldn't find anything but it was raised and it was raised pacifically and mentioned several times during that hearing and it was al discussed at the end of the hearing by the attorney said that that was one of the reasons that mr jeffers wanted to withdraw the plague so at the time that he entered into the plea he believed that he was saving the properties as of the time he mistakenly he mistakenly believed that he was that he was saving the properties the collateral properties and then as soon as he found out that the government was going after the propert that's when he made this timely motion this is not one of the cases as of the time of the hearings you knew the government was not going before for the well at the time of the hearing the government lost their motion they had already lost a motion that was that went on the same day  because if you look at the p s r it is absolutely consistent with the plea agreement the only difference between the p s r and the plea agreement was the two points for gosh and for acceptance of responsibility which was still in the hands of the judge at that point in time so he would have been thirty two instead of thirty four so that was not the cost that generated this what caused it was in september seventh the government filed for the forfeiture of the collateral properties so that was that was the events that occurred after that and then when the government for the for sure what the collateral properties mr jeffers put in five hundred thousand dollars friends family church members put up five hundred thousand dollars of their homes for except i don't know that you turn any of the attorneys ever really listen to mr jeffers i mean that was one of his problems that they never he has several attorneys throughout the never really listened to him when he went in for his plea agreement and i see these all the time where people say well my lawyer is a complex case that we cart will take forty million dollars parishioners money well that's what is alleged i mean we don't know mr jefferson hasn't had an opportunity to actually go before the court because he continues to maintain his innocence he got four extra years in prison because the the court determined that that was a was not accepting responsibility so i don't know what this is i don't know if it's a really a scheme or or what it is i don't know if he was duped by someone it was if you practice he's an ordained minister i don't believe he's practicing i think and maybe mr matz is more familiar with that than i am but he no he had but he had a christian following a lot of people my name is jeremy mats i represent the united states on this appeal your honors the record i believe cannot be more clear that the impact on the sureties hones was not any part of the reason why defendant pled guilty in the first place in july of two thousand and four and it was also not any part of the reason why defendant moved to withdraw his plea later in november of two thousand and four and in any event the fear dissipated i'm sorry  the fear dissipated that is correct your honor and it is a matter of timing which is very important that the court has a properly focused on this morning's first point how could the record show what was in his mind the record can't make it clear as to what is most of your honor i think actually in this case unlike in perhaps some most other cases the record does actually reflect exactly what was in this defendant's mind both immediately before during and immediately after the time that he  guilty pleas and the reason for that of course is because of his phone calls to his wife and to his secretary all of which are part of the record as the court knows in those phone calls the defendant discusses many reasons why it is in his interest to plead guilty not once in any of those conversations which of course are occurring with two of his closest people in the world is there any mention whatsoever of him pleading guilty in order to try to stave or somehow preserve the homes of the on to the shirt there is ample discussion of all the other reasons why he is in fact pleading guilty so in this particular case the record does actually indicate what was in mr jeffers mind and there were many things in his mind to be sure but the impact on the surety holmes was certainly not in july of two thousand and four in october of two thousand  hearing ever deal with the question of whether that was a reason not explicitly your honor because of the fact that the district judge never called upon to do so because of the fact that the impact on the surety holmes was never actually put forward by mr with the record and on cross examination he candidly admitted that the reason he wanted to withdraw his pleas at that point in time was because he wanted to go to trial because he was innocent and because he wanted to win that's the reason why he said he wanted to withdraw the pleas before the district judge on the hearing into motion none of those reasons of course have anything to do with the surety homes and so i think that to the extent the district judge may have been wondering whether the surety homes were any part of the reason to withdraw the  and it was they were not put forward as such the district judge clearly could have reached no other conclusion but that the sureties homes for no part of the reason to withdraw the police based on mr jeffers own admissions he said at the hearing i want to go to trial because i'm innocent i'm going to win advised at the beginning of every single phone call that the phone call is being recorded that there is no privacy interest in the phone call and that the authorities at the institution may be listening in on his phone calls i know that because i myself was in those phone calls and i believe that's part of the record i've listen to the ones that are part of the record yes the ones that were yes of course not live of course i listen to recordings of those phone calls yes and so as i was saying the factual record could not be more clear that the defendant was not thinking about the sureties homes at the time he pled guilty nor was he thinking about the sureties homes at the time he moved to withdraw his plea the only time that he i should say the pled guilty that was six weeks after the pre sentence report was disclosed that was the same day that the district judge after hearing from mr jeffers in chambers then proceeded to rule on the motion the government's motion to forfeit the bot and of course the district judge denied that motion and so mr jeffers walked out of court that day on october fourth he was present during the entire proceeding knowing that he surely should retain title to their homes knowing that the government had not prevailed on this motion to forfeit those homes and knowing that the sureties were safe in holding title to their homes about more than four weeks later i believe it was on november eighth of two thousand and four is when he actually made his motion to the district court to withdraw his plea and so there's no possible way that four weeks after he himself heard that the surety said read in title to the homes that he could then be making a motion to withdraw his plea supposedly on the ground to restore title to those homes to the jury's ok thank harmed or not harmed it's the same sort of thing just because the sureties properties were not taken away at the time mr jeffers had his concern and things to change was when he learned that they were they were seeking to take the property away walked in down a line of reasoning said so you have no harm because the properties weren't taken away mr jefferson well i have i have other harm to but that's a legal sort of conclusion an argument and the matter was discussed subsequently and his lawyer did bring it up