and twenty four dollars c charge and the purpose of this statute of course is to ensure that the defendant knew what he was pleading guilty to was in fact  crime and the standard this court uses is to determine whether what the defendant is admitting and i should go back and refer to the district court's purpose is to look at whether there judge i do not think the record lends itself to the reasonable inference that the van was used to transport drugs and what we have in this record is one narcotic transaction which occurred about a month before he was arrested when the gun was was recovered and his the van was parked in the vicinity of the residence where this particular drug transaction took place and as a result of that the agents obtain a g p s tracking warrant and that's all we know about the van on that particular day i do want to know that my client lived down the street from where the narcotics transaction took place narcotics transaction took place at three o six kellogg street my client's residence at the time was five hundred and thirteen dollars kellogg street and it's on the other end of the block but that's all we know about the van and the key inference that the court drew from from the facts that my client admitted that the gun was his he used it for his possession and th he had this gun for ninety days and from that the court extrapolated that when he engaged in that particular drug deal he possessed the gun and the band of the gun was in the band he constructively what is it the legal impact and the import of the words i would say both because originally he was charged with with possessing the weapon as a felon which is a mere possession standard in furtherance of course c that he that he challenge that particular term we didn't address that in our papers the he he alleged that his attorney did not explain to him what this element meant and as it relates to his motion to withdraw his plea or submitting that hearing would be needed because his attorney denies it there's a question of fact there but this court has an independent we asked for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea and it was based more on ineffective assistance of counsel than the legal innocence program of course that is one of the factors a court considers and i'm asking this court to take into consideration whether my client has asserted a claim of legal because he is asserting that claim and i don't think there's a delay because he did make his intention known fairly soon after is that there is no weapon that's readily accessible as it relates to the drugs or the drug proceeds and we cite two cases a and those two cases are significant here because in both those instances the defendant said similar to what my client said is that i had the gun for my protection but in those two cases and one of the cases the weapon was on the defendant's possession personal possession at the time of the drug activity and in the other case the weapon was readily accessible to not only the defendant but it was with where the drugs were stored and so you have that that and that nexus and that's what this boils down to the nexus in this case is the extrapolation that on the one single concrete  court will decide that issue i think that makes this case unique because you just do not have that connection between the weapon and the drug activity other than my client's admission did he understand what in further incident and that's why it's important the record indicates that he did obviously that language was included in the information to which he introduced guilty plea please greenman set forth the language of in furtheran doesn't the law how would you respond to this that the law requires that the district court has to compare the law to the particular conduct that the defendant admits  to having committed well i think will you agree that that's correct yes that sounds to me like a correct statement of the lawyer and so how to how did that happen here well  the defendant's van was surveilled outside of the residence where the defendant was making a delivery of a half a kilogram of cocaine in april and the gun obviously was found in court below drew what's the evidence that rosario used the van war carry the gun in connection with the with the with the transaction  we know that the van was parked near the home but beyond that where is the specific nexus that is the specific nexus in addition to that to the extent the court was obliged to determine that there was a factual basis for the plea there was the criminal complaint before the court which in contradiction to the mysteries aryans contention that he only delivered drugs on one occasion and set forth a basis to believe that he was in gauged in the distribution of cocaine on numerous occasions and it was undisputed that during th time period that these distributions inference of the conspiracy occurred he used the van where the gun was found to be so that the gun was found in the girl finds van we know that we know that but the nexus is what we're trying to establish well i mean the only thing that i can point to specifically is the proximity of the van to the purchaser's residence and the in ence which seems to be permissible that the drugs were transported in the van but in the if if the district court is entitle to conclude contrary to  contention that this conspiracy involved more than one style of cocaine we don't have to put the gun next to the drugs specifically to demonstrate that he carried  gun in furtherance of the drug conspiracy because the danger from engaging in that conduct doesn't only exist in the context of a specific transaction is the problem here that it further and the problem i don't think that's the government's problem i think that's the defendant's problem and to the extent there has to be that's the issue i mean the government would have presumably flesh that out there been any doubt about his understanding of the word in furtherance at the plea well when when the government detailed the proof against the defendant nature of the charge and think is the word he had no questions about that counsel at the time of the plea said or confirm to the district court that he had advised the defendant of the nature of the charge so everything that occurs and and i would also point to something judge part brought out which is right below that in the clear agreement where the language in furtherance of is used with respect to the gun charge it's used not as an element of but as factual support for the drug charge and there's no question ever raised by the defendant that he didn't understand that one word even if even if let's say the defendant understood that some sense of the of those words and for the rights of doesn't that the district court still have an obligation to see whether the conduct falls within the contours of what the law for scribes yes but he doesn't have to find proof beyond reasonable doubt he's got to determine that there is a sufficient factual basis in the record for the court to conclude that this crime occurred the this court has said the delay should be measured from the time of the entry of the plea to the time of the making of the motion here that's about six months the st time in the record that mr riggs ario alerts the district court to the fact that he doesn't think he's guilty of this offense is in october some four months after that four months after the entry of the guilty plea so even without looking at the time that the motion to withdraw is made the delay in alerting the court and not asking for his plea to be withdrawn but even if you just look at when you learned of the court several months have gone by that weighs against mr rosario whether there's a claim of factual innocence and there is a claim of factual innocence here and whether there prejudice to the government and the government has not claimed to be prejudiced that it would be prejudiced if there's a withdrawal of this plea what the court then describes not listed as a separate factor is what type of allocution has occurred and has specifically said all allegations that refute the defendant's statements under oath are generally insufficient to permit the withdrawal guilty plea and hear everything in the record leading up to mr as arias indication to the court you know i didn't understand this language indicates that he did and if there was doubt advised the defendant of the nature of this charge so beyond the defendant's assertion there is nothing in the record to indicate that he doesn't understand that language and his claim if i may for just make one point that he is not proficiency in the english language having been born in puerto rico i think his ballade by looking at the letters that he wrote to the district court which argument with respect to your question about the way the record was supplemented with letters that my client wrote to the court shortly after he pled guilty and i would just like to give a brief timeline of what my client did because i submit he exercised due diligence in trying to withdraw his plea and he pled guilty i think on june  th he wrote the court complaining about his attorney's answer to that discovery question and in the letter to the court he says i respectfully asked the court to allow me to with plea and afford me a bail hearing that was not in the original record that was supplemented after i filed my brief he didn't raise the in furtherance claim at that point in time but he did articulate his desire to withdraw his pl so after that about a week later giving a reason that giving a reason that that point he was complaining about his attorney for saying that he had received discovery when he had not received it and shortly after that  sentencing date he appears in court with with counsel i'm sorry he wrote another letter to the court raising the in furtherance plane that we're here today and then on october th which was the original sentencing date he appears with his counsel and to be advised as mr was aereo that he's going to sentencing and he should think carefully about whether to proceeding with with this motion to withdraw and then it wasn't until about six weeks after that on december th when his lawyer filed the motion that's six months certainly but scratch the surface and you have a here arguing the eleven b three point that is an independent claim from his motion to withdraw and what this case boils down to if if you accept that he knew the concept of in furtherance and that his plea was voluntary does this record show that factual predicate and i submit it doesn't thank you thank you both your arguments the court will reserve decision