s corpus this court should reverse the decision of the district court and order the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus vacating mr president about this conviction and ten year sentence for contempt because the state in seeking the contempt conviction and additional ten year sentence violated the terms of the plea agreement the state entered with mr president alice which specified that if you failed to testify against his he would serve a term of thirty five years in prison now here the state has agreed in its brief that the plea agreement entered with the defendant provided for this thirty five year sentence in the event of his non cooperation the sta distinction is simply that the thirty five year sentence only applied in the instance that mr president i was testified on truthfully but that is here where he refused to testify now the state's argument in this regard does he couldn't be prosecuted for perjury and the thirty five year sentence would kick in but here because he didn't testify at all all that why would he be prosecuted for perjury one thing using the state's reasoning the state insists in their brief that yes there is this provision for a thirty five year sentence if you fail to cooperate with the state asserts that only applies if he testifies on truthfully and that somehow here by refusing to testify entirely he hasn't kicked into that second provision and i'm saying that that would lead to ridiculous results where he wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for perjury but he can't be prosecuted for contempt because they're making a distinction between no testimony and untruth less money that really there is no distinction because the written agreement here if you look at the are in agreement this reflected in the letter from the state's two defense counsel it says that any deviation from truthful testimony will result in the state not only not withdrawn or withdrawn its agreement to reduce mr president also sends what it says in such events the defendant will serve the initially agreed sentence of thirty five years so it's clear from the written agreement and which i would point out to this court that written agreement was incorporated by the trial judge when accepting mr president thousands plea it he was informed by the court you understand there's a letter that controls your plea and you've read it so this written agreement that controls the police says any deviation no st but there's been no argument by the state at any stage not in the state court that here that there's been any waiver of that issue in the contents but going back to this issue of reason from the case law is that plea agreements must be interpreted looking at the reasonable expectation of the defendants when they enter them and that's what due process requires because the defendant's giving up his rights to have a trial he's giving up his rights based the promise of the state and in this case the promise of the state was if you plead guilty you will serve thirty five years there was in addition a part of the agreement that said if you cooperate with us in our discretion we can come back and vacate this fifteen years as long as you have truthful c testimony and you'll get that fifteen year reduction but then if you don't cooperate with us the initially agreed thirty five years kicks in so mr president's office expectation was a few pled guilty and he didn't testify he would serve thirty five years and that's the re are patient based on this letter and really any even any reasonable attorney advising mr president alice if he said what happens if i don't testify if you look at this letter you would say well if you don't testify you serve the initially agreed upon thirty five years of the state  then now pursuing this contempt and additional ten year sentence was tacked on to thirty five years is unilaterally modifying disagreements because there's no suggestion that by refusing to testify mr president could then not illinois who we have different rules from diverse age illinois murder it's a full time hundred percent right and the expectation as i said of mr presents us would be that he serves this thirty five years  the state can't get around this by seeking this contempt and this additional sentence because it does violate the terms of that plea agreement and that's what standard says that where the state extracts a plea of guilty on the defendant based on promises agreement so in this case due process really demands that the thirty five years that was reviewed should start originally agreed to stands there's no other questions i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for a good afternoon may please the court counsel this court can affirm the denial of p b s relief here for two reasons first the state court reasonably determined that petitioners plea deal did not  immunize him from prosecution for contempt and second even assuming that prosecutors had promised immunity there's no clearly established law that requires the state court to provide specific performance as a remedy sentence that says in such event that the defendant serves thirty five years and there are two reasons why there's a problem with with her argument the first is that defendant is serving thirty five years on the murder conviction and so he did he receive the benefit of his bargain in that sense if you read that provision as saying if you don't cooperate you get thirty five years but in fact that's not what the what the sent all if you look at the two or three sentences before that what the letter says is the prosecution is entering into this agreement on the assumption that defendant's previous statement has his video recorded statement was truthful and if that's incorrect defend it has to come to the prosecution before entering the plea agreement or before entering his plea of guilty and say what is incorrect about that statement and at that point the prosecution has the option either continuing with the plea agreement or saying no we don't want your cooperation anymore and at that point he gets thirty five years so that the sentence just doesn't apply here at all because petitioner did not come to the state before entering his plea and it says nothing about either perjury or contempt as as potential repercussions of conduct that occurred that would have occurred after the police was entered so the state court decision here was based on two factual determinations both of which were well supported by the record first the court found that petitioner broke his promise to cooperate in the results trial and it looked at the stipulations from the contemp that this offer letter and so it looked at all of those pieces of evidence and it concluded that all of them supported the idea that picture had promised that he would cooperate this wasn't an option that he could choose cooperation or not and then the second factual finding in that in the appellate court's decision was that prosecutors never promised that petitioner would be able to disobey d a court order to testify and face no consequences and that was a reasonable determination because there is nothing on the face of any of this evidence that that ship that includes such a promise and it wouldn't have made any sense for prosecutors to a promise that because if you think back to the position that the parties were in before the plea deal interface based on his actual conduct a sentence of between thirty five and seventy five you so it wouldn't have made sense for prosecutors to allow petitioner to plead guilty get the minimum sentence and not offer any cooperation and r there's no other questions about that issue i'll turn to our second argument which is that under current in people where oh there it's the supreme court squarely held there that there is no clearly established law case goes would stick the federal horse into determining the state police grammont you would not have to do that at all your honor because the state court actually had two independent holdings and it's a pity if you look on page twenty of the appendix ok you don't have to look it up but they have to the second holding was that we'll assume that there was a violation of a promise in that case we still don't think that's somewhat an answer yes i still don't think that that giving immunity to contempt is it is a good solution because the court has an independent interest in protecting itself from contempt and petitioner tries to characterize quero as saying that the supreme court held in that case that the petitioner had had had that there was a constitutional violation and that the court had remained is to determine a remedy but that's simply that can't be squared with the language where the court says that it was going to assume purely for argument's sake that the state violated the constitution but it still was unable to find supreme court precedent that clearly established federal that clearly established federal law to manning specific performance of the remedy and the court then said it was going to decide no other issue in that case and it was remanded to the ninth circuit only for  proceedings consistent with this opinion so there's nothing in cuero that requires a remained here and and it wouldn't accomplish anything because as i said the state court already held that even assuming a constitutional violation contempt immunity from so to begin with i would dispute counsel's restitution that the state courts determination was correct and state courts interpretations agreement was unreasonable and the state court really relied on this idea that because the state had not said explicitly in that plea agreement the sole remedy for your breach is thirty five years that somehow that allows them to come in with this contempt because they didn't specify that they weren't going to see contempt but again that gets a field of what the law with due process demands which is the reasonable expectation of the defendant it's not reasonable to say that because the state didn't explicitly in the states the drafter of the agreement here the state puts what they want in this plea agreement they're the ones in control because they didn't explicitly put that they weren't going to seek contempt now they can come in afterwards and say we're not we didn't write happy with how this went for us we'd like to get more time out of you let's go for contempt of ten years that's not reasonable and i this agreement is no and void which is actually distinct from here because the state didn't put in language that said if you didn't testify this room was non void it's implicit that the state said if you don't testify this is what will happen to you you will serve thirty five years that's what th defend it would have understood when he entered this plea which is really that the meat of this huge issue that's what this court has to consider what did the defendant understand when he said he is pleading guilty because we're garbus of whether it's a good deal a bad deal whatever deal it is the defendant is giving up his rights to have a trial fundamental right here and it's based on the state's promise and that's why due process demands that we scrupulously out of those premises so the state courts interpretation was not reasonable  and it is the reasonable expectation of the fact that he would serve thirty five years and i'd like to cuero issue i think really gets at the issue of where it doesn't definitively say that specific performance is not appropriate we look at sanibel sanibel said depending on the situation there could be specific performance there could be a withdrawal of the plea it depended instead of all of the issue was that he had been promised the state would make no recommendation and then they did not recommend the maximum would point out in closing that it really is the state's action and that the court contempt here because the state asked the trial court to call the defendant in before trial see if he was going to testify or nat and then when he said he wasn't going to the state asked the court to order him to testify and the judge seemed uncomfortable with that then did it anyways and then said what do you want me to do stay in the states and we need to order him then he gets a petition for contempt filed by the state and the states the one that seeks this  ten year sentence that's consecutive she was thirty five year sentence so for those reasons this seeking of this ten year contempt sentence by the state was in violation of the plea agreements and sanibel demands that it be vacated and we'