terminations of the case the first point i raised was that it's apparent belief that what the government gauged in below last count two three and four of the environment was in essence a perjury trap if there was any valid criminal charge against the appellant it would have been in count one which was the original dispute over what was said during that first opposition the jury however was unable to reach a verdict on count one they hung on that count counts two three and four were nothing more than repetitions by the government forcing this mechanic to repeat under oath the statement she had already made which were contained in count one the government try to distinguish the prior perjury trap case i rec having somebody from the public defender's office appoint her since she viewed that as somebody paid for by the government and the government was alleging the end charges against her and the magistrate talked to her and it seemed like the magistrate explained for what was going to go on and that she shouldn't have these feelings that she should give them a chance she raised her initial concerns so we know that from the beginning she was concerned about it the next time was much stronger and although that was shortly before the trial it softly shortly very shortly motion on september twenty fifth so that's one of the london games there's only a short window here between the bring of the superseding indictment and the new trial it's impossible for her to have what this motion and nothing on the eve of trial in the trials only a month in between that that window there and it does appear on the record below that you put the motion as soon as she determined that her counsel were going to file motions such as the vindictive in selective prosecution motion and those motions weren't filed so i can argue how they would have been decided unusual case where a person is indicted for statements during a deposition in the civil case by the same office it would seem that such a motion should have been looked at seriously and if she has counsel who are simply eyes with her over that important point it's not as if you came in with no reason to change your lawyer she seems to have a reason that on its face peers reasonable and it was shortly after the superseding indictment was right there are two further requests and of course think are not only ambiguous but also simply weren't material to the real issue here under i think the case would have still valid in this circuit the issue here is what is the state where the statements material that was the reach of the spear and that was the original disagreement between the parties that put her credibility into issue however counts two three and four counts two i don't believe is even admissible against her at the her corrections so the second deposition isn't inconsistent with what she's already said during her credibility into issue and there are sufficient facts there for them actually to make a conclusion based on the evidence before her whether she lied during their first a position i don't believe it's material if the government gets you to repeat that statement two three and four the perjury in the context of discovery as you know anything that's a proper discovery is material almost just part of the you know the decision maker require way before that right it will be before that your honor but there's nothing in the record defendant has presented nothing in the record other than making these unsupported claims moreover i think it's important for this court's know that this claim was rejected by both of her attorneys substitution of counsel should have been honored the record is clear your honour's that the district court did not abuse its discretion that in each case the district court cleared the courtroom conducted a full hearing directed focused question to the attorneys to the defendant to get to the heart of the matter and find out what was going on and what the court did find out was that they were communicating there were multiple several of our meetings but that there was a disagreement over i briefed in my brief before this court that is not a basis for substitution of counsel moving on to the material ality argument sufficient evidence supports each of the the statements in counts two three and four were material and i submit to this court that there can be a different decision maker at different stages of a criminal or a civil proceeding in this government she was seeking to find out what were the facts so that she could make a decision as to whether the claim went away even got to a magistrate the possibility exists that it would not have had been settled or there wasn't any need to in there were in fact made by defendant and that those statements influenced her as a decision maker in making her decision maker is the court and as you pointed out when you're doing a deposition if you're doing with the goal that ultimately you're developing the fact that you're going to present a trial then clearly the magistrate would also be the decision maker as to count two but with regard to the magistra  exploit that here and indeed did by arguing that this critical error showed that the statement was not material emphasized that repeatedly on cross examination on closing argument and the government's position is that if there are any other questions now began some otherwise i would submit it on the brief that was filed along with the argument today all right thank you thank you the record counsel's correct is no motion filed no development of that record and that's exactly why the trial court should have appoints a new counsel to do that so we know the government knows when the criminal file was opened the defense still