adequately presented that claim by mentioning explicitly counsel's ineffectiveness and complained that he was sentenced as a career offender which is exactly the year the council made and then the reasons that this recorder gave for denying the motion had nothing to do with the substance of that claim or even a characterization or of a disagreement of whether that was a sufficient  mention of the issue to to reach characterize it the reasons that this report gave all had more to do with the nature and scope of counsel's appointment than anything having to do with the letter of the pleading so i want to be clear about is that if this were a situation where a judge read a pleading and said this doesn't adequately present a twenty to fifty five issue i think that's a different argument and then we would have to review the judge's basis for making that determination but that's not what happened here the judge didn't even get that far into considering the plain face of the document the court just said that but we think that this court could look at it as as this court has before to say that this pleading liberally construed as pro se pleading should be adequately percents a twenty dollars to fifty five dollars claim and this court file something compliant with anders which even leaving aside whether anders actually applies in this situation but but even if we were to file something in accordance with anders then it becomes our duty to identify any the original was yes there was a rib it has nothing to do with its reason re sentencing or collateral or see no it was a new recent saying as a remedy for the twenty to fifty five grant and so at the tw se if he had been in the same position after a trial or guilty plea and then he goes to a sensing and at that proceeding the judge the probation officer the prosecutor and defense attorney all missed the fact that offender guideline had been revised and did not comply with a one book rule because they applied part of the two thousand and sixteen manual but not all of it and mr brown should not have been deemed a career offender and counsel enough that any time that pro se pleading says one of the reasons that my lawyer was ineffective that should set off alarm bells for any district judge but then particularly where a judge has appointed counsel and told counsel give me anything in the record because that's what i understand is give me anything that might support a claim then he has the advice of counsel to say your honor the there's also this issue buried in not even variance a two or three page document it's it's right on the face of it that one of the reasons why council was in effect it says to the core and so it doesn't require any sort of of mind reading to use your irish freeze and that's especially i want to call attention to the castro characterized as a two thousand two hundred and fifty five that that carries consequences that it could count as their one and only two thousand two hundred and fifty five and so in that situation though the supreme court contemplates that conversation between the court and the indigent defendant the prisoner to say is this what you're really trying to raise and the prisoners then able to say yes in fact i do want to treat this is a twenty to fifty five that's what should have happened here the district court should have seen and in effect in this claim here and afforded mr brown the castro warning to separate trying to just life as complicated as possible mr judges and  we're talking about making more havoc and if it had been because of a decision rendered after so well but if if everybody had gotten it right at the time in december th seen then we wouldn't even be here if they  applied the correct guidelines then this is not about making more work for the court now it's that the courts should have done the right then and the council then was ineffective so that and if the district court has concerns about our office at that point it can appoint someone else but if the court is inclined to have a correction there irrelevant that issue they're talking about  say that he's not a career offender and therefore all of this is much ado about nothing and i do want to point out that we've certainly lengthened the brief and this court does not need to get into this it would be very easy to just send it back to the district court to consider in the seventeen dash ten million one hundred and eleven thousand and eleven that was decided in september of this year just a few weeks ago so produce for you what the government's asking on that front would would create a search split but it's really not anything that this war has to do that something that this report should consider in the st instance and i suppose that recent sing council might even be able to come up with with some position of why he didn't object although i can't imagine one at this point but because it certainly harmed mr brown that his guideline range instead of being one hundred to one hundred and twenty five months was one hundred and fifty one to one hundred and eighty eight months that tremendous swing in the guideline was was due entirely to the failure to apply the guidelines that were in effect at the time yes and i read the sentencing transcript and it really did seem like everybody was very confused about what was going on and which lines were looking at it st everyone thought it was the two thousand and sixteen guidelines and then probation had to explain morning your honor says it and run for the current government i think despite some of the atmospheric complexity in this case this really comes down to pleading standards and whether or not a pro se defendants motion in this case can be even liberally about representation yes so i think the pleading standards for haiti is petitioners are relevant here in addition to the scope of liberal construction and how far it can go through it has to be liberally the focus is discerning the litigants intent from the document this could not be clear that he's asking for two offense levels down based on amendment seven hundred and eighty two and that he wants about twenty six months off his sentence and re sentencing under a new guideline it sends you a question about intent because i know that i've seen lots and lots of cases where the limitations period for twenty to fifty five it's higher and this is one hundred percent clear that understands that and is very much intending to bring his motion under say sixteen instead and we have no difficulty in those cases and we don't care what you call it or why we need ten what you wish to do here motions as twenty to fifty five is because to do so would break the statutory time limitations to do that would be an end run around the hague be a statute there's no statue that authorizes the characterization of and eighty two reduction motion in fact the explicit language that reference it is the fact that one of his predicate offenses can no longer be considered as such the st words of that are leaving that aside and then he again assumes when he's asking for resentencing in a new statutory range that he remains in criminal history category six which assumes the career offender enhancement because he would have been for otherwise so that at the core i really think this just comes down to the fact even get to whether or not there's a twenty to fifty five claim here the st was the other me about this is it you all are trying to tell the lawyer for this fellow how you're supposed to practice law and i don't see that the government has a right to do that or the judge have a right to do that his duty the lawyer with appointed lawyer is to zealously represent his client he can make mistakes we all have a bit when we practice law but he has a zealous obligation to represent his client as best he can and if he does make mistakes if he does something wrong or there are avenues of sanctioning of ruhleben and some proceedings and other things like that but he has to represent his client as best he can and you are entitled to the district or be rejected up here we can have a laptop thing but he has to represent here's kline i agree your honor i think the government's position in this case is particularly where the a motion to how he has for privacy all your honor i don't believe that is what we're doing it is certainly not our intent well at issue here is whether or not a lawyer on the pleading that does not state that it was made in consultation with the defendant and is not signed by the defendant uses one of the defendant's rights when the glory or we're not going for that purpose i think that's not exactly what i'm saying you're going to practice law that was the concern i believe that motivated to district court are government's position is that that is a valid concern in light of castro that where a litigant is twenty to st and only twenty to fifty five in most cases can be burned just records are right to be very protective about whether or not this is with public defender did anything improper or violated the law or violated the order think it was not within the scope of the appointed representation to do what the disk by the defense lawyer did correct ok you don't you don't think this was an ancillary matter appropriate to the proceedings or that it sought to achieve the objective of the defendant i think it likely is and so to be very clear i'm distinguishing between what the order said and what the statute authorizes so what he was asked to  cases i would believe so you're on and off the top of my head i think there have been guidelines cases but i can't say with certainty what they are in their job of them and so forth so i don't want to take a position that i understand but even if we get past that threshold issue counsel was not ineffective here because there was by binding guidelines commentary stating that the nine hundred and twenty four dollars c prior conviction here was a facial crime of violence and therefore it counts and counsel wasn't constitutional so but the way the guidelines works as it treats the nine hundred and twenty four c as the crime of violence in that context and states very clearly that the only question that you ask is whether or not it was predicated on a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense and i crime that's not a crime of violence there's two answers your honor one is that the commentary is binding so if that if the commission wants to establish all nine hundred and twenty four see crimes as crimes of violence for purposes of the career offender statute that's fine even if they wouldn't so it's perfectly reasonable for the guidelines commission to say when you're using a firearm to commit this predicate offense then it is a crime of violence the analogy would be discords holding that while simple assault isn't a predicate crime of violence aggravated assault with the correct during sentencing ok but the only way and so your understand your argument is it wouldn't have mattered because it's still a crime of violence under this commentary and he has to prove to the force it's correct ok so essentially when the commission excise this one in some other way yes and i think that would be it a wholly novel claim at that point that that it could come in some other way well that there's nothing novel about the claim that it looks like my guy was convicted under the sentence under the residual that this  resent it saying so there's a whole mess of issues which is why i think the guidelines treat it as sort of this blanket if the nine hundred and twenty four c is valid and it's predicate was a crime of violence we treat it as a crime of violence i think the other way to do it would you go back and you  be decided on whether or not the pro se motion does in fact stay in ineffective assistance of counsel claims and i think even a liberal construction doesn't get you that far if the court has no further questions will rest on  thank you your honor system a couple of very brief points taking the last thing st with regard to the guidelines commentary again i don't want to spend a lot of time in the weeds with this here but the guidelines commentary does not make all nine  s crimes of violence because the definition of crime of violence is different in the guidelines than it is in one hundred and twenty four c the guidelines require a threat or injury against the person nine hundred and twenty four dollars c allows a threat to injure property and if the if the commission wanted all nine hundred and twenty four dollars c's to carry out it would have said so but in fact what it said is if it does qualify as a crime of violence under the guidelines definition then  there are offenses that can count as ny twenty four c's under nine hundred and twenty four c's crime of violence definition that do not count under the guidelines crime of violence definition which is also the same thing with drugs so drug trafficking to fancy and but i would prefer the court to the two thousand and seventeen car for a decision car for two which says it is very similar that if a if an issue is clearly presented by existing law and the real problem here is that everybody miss it at the and sixteen sentencing the judge the probation officer the prosecutor and defense attorney mr brown is the only one suffering from that and if the court if the government's concerned about that sort of paternalistic concern that we're somehow taking away mr brown's chance for twenty to fifty five that's exactly what castro says to give him a warning and to notify him of that and then allow him to go in with full knowledge of the consequences and the last point i'll make is all that we're asking for is the standard that the supreme court set out in gonzalez versus crosby which deals with three characterization and that case was a sixty b although interestingly enough the petitioner in that case titled his motion a fifty nine  and the court said well in fact it was really a sixty be so and but said that what the courts need to be concerned about is substance over form and the substance if the if the substance of what the person is trying to do is to attack the underlying conviction or sentence then it is in substance and in effect and ineffectiveness are or twenty dollars to fifty five dollars claim and that's what was happening here and we think it was adequately presented or at least that the