we have two motions that are being argued this morning before i turn to the calendar or let's start with united states of america versus thank you now so you could subpoena witnesses and so on and so forth is very any indication that she would have pled any different if the specific words had been said questions they don't answer them third as a tend to enter wrapped in a knot i think that's quite an overstatement i know most judges at the beginning say to them if you need to take a break and talk to your lawyer talk to your lawyer yes it is a script the most part but there's the pressure is the pressure of the moment it's not that the defendant is being pressure was there any doubt when she came out that she wanted to plead guilty and that her lawyer had in fact advised her of all her rights that she'd be waiving before n proceed to trial if she so decides she had that opportunity the first time around it's just not clear from the record that she understood her rights at the time she pled guilty you know you keep saying it's not clear from the record but the fact is we're on the record from the denial of a bail application right so she could have put anything in that record that she wanted to she could have said my attorney didn't advise me that i'd be giving up my right to subpoena witnesses for example she going to put in all kinds of things saying i didn't know i was giving this up we don't have that because the issue on appeal is simply whether or not the appeal raises a substantial question which it does yes but the question of whether it raises a substantial question depends in part what it is that you're saying would be raised and at the moment we have you know a guilty plea that looks about as good as most guilty pleas and somebody who has been convicted that's a very different issue before conviction but bail after you have to have something that that really is likely to  get his voting rivers here essentially saying that there's a structural defect that requires a medically requires a reaffirmation of the desire to plead guilty after the initial statement that i want to plead guilty ruhleben doesn't say that there's no cases that say that at best it seems to me you're advocating for a best practices but we can't let the best be the enemy of good can iran or even the united states bench but for district judges said the importance of pleading guilty on a person's life on the consequences they should be asked at the after being advised all their rights if they still west to plead guilty it seems to me if you have the ability to raise some doubt as to whether she really wanted to plead guilty or he didn't know what she was giving up at the time and that could have been hand in the context of a bail application then you might cross the border to a substantial issue but what substantial it just isn't as good as it could have been me it's not just bad again it's the whole issue that every other judge seems to ask at the end she'd all goes to good practice and there's no doubt that it's good practice with question is is it reverse i think it certainly is and if i may just conclude by saying the appellant has filed her brief the government's brief is due obvious second i believe what difference does it make if anyway your time is up we'll hear from the government please the court my name is scarce and fletcher i'm an assistant u s attorney for the southern district of new york and i represent the united states in the district court and on this appeal this court should deny the appellant's motion for bail pending appeal because it does not raise a substantial issue as judge would correctly noted below there is no issue of law or fact likely to result in reversal of the defendant's guilty plea and of her conviction the transcript of chances that you might serve something that you wouldn't significant that you wouldn't so the only issue is whether bear is a significant issue because yes your honor the only issue is whether or her appeal raises a significant issue the the appellant's argument is that judge ellis should have asked a particular question in a particular way at a particular time during the the plea proceeding but as as the panel has noted the law doesn't require that rule eleven doesn't require that the law of the second circuit doesn't require that and in fact judge ellis did at the end of the proceeding ask a summary question which was did you commit the offense with which you have been charged following the advice of rights following informing mr sod of the penalties and of the charges a great fit for the purpose of the rather tedious recitation of factors under rule eleven is to make sure that after the defendant has heard this parade of horribles the defendant still wants to plead guilty and that confirmation didn't come up to the not in the specific words that the appellant contends it should have come appellant was afforded the opportunity following the advice of her rights to indicate whether she still wished to plead guilty or not essentially this is an argument about the specific words that judge ellis used he did ask her did you commit the offense with which you have been charged after informing her of her rights and the circuit has has held that judges in plea proceedings are not required to implement a particular script are not required to pose questions in any particular order or affirm following the advice of rights that the defendant still wishes to plead guilty thank you i will reserve decision but file an order this afternoon i understand her report date has passed and once we failed so once we