this case and it is this the government reached the plea agreement in this case by not informing the district or mr pounces cooperation like paragraph eleven big remit and set a record by seventy five require the government to do obvious that we agreement required the government to tell the district judge district court of my client's cooperation it has no answer to say the district court was already aware of the cooperation therefore the government didn't have to open up or it's end of the bargain the government had a specific duty regardless of anything the district court knows because the government's imprimatur when it comes to making a sentencing recommendation carries special weight with this records we would like to engage  your honor that's the only reason i say that it's not to disparage just records but it's in part because if i get one point one judge and so we are habituated to an idea that if the guidelines on the prosecutors have special knowledge and therefore  so that is typically the undoing of claims of this type of my client's not challenging his sentence he would like to withdraw his plea he made an effort steadily to withdraw as we in this case and when the breach occurs here it's an election and remedies my client is not challenging the length and sentence such that he wants to remain free sentencing he would like to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial so that's a different type of error than other cases where the court has been able to deny the claim for after getting the legally available minimum sentence he wants to go to trial ok it may not be a wise decision on it but it is one that he consistently socks for himself and he would like again to challenge this case if this was so important to him why wasn't this issue raised in the district court well here asked to withdraw his plea as i recall but he did not alert the district court to the breach was a discontinuity of counsel that led to this problem and it seems that way from the record but in any event the failure to alert the district court simply means that we don't get to know about review and so we have to proceed under clane air and i think that addresses that concern here we have a harder task now because the standard of review but it isn't something that we wait so i guess i should mention that for you that the government has argued waiver in this case but those waiver cases are they cannot be reconciled with mario and taylor they are cases that talk about waiver but this court's jurisprudence has consistently in other instances not our own taylor talked about the ability of plain air review in a case such as this where there's been no explicit waiver of the right to appeal say in the orlando case the government site so it's important to notice that difference and with that list the court has any absolutely no prejudice here the defendant pled guilty to two offenses which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in jail that was actually below the device regarding iran's regions case and that is the sentence that mr counts the defendant receives the defendant is brought up the fact that there is a cooperation provision in the plea agreement that required the government to advise the district court of the extent of his and at the p s r and paragraph twenty six dollars p s are notes that mr collins senate advised the probation officer that he sat for the safety offered and then again at sentencing it's pages ten and thirteen of the sense you transfer it which is the defendant's appendix the defendant himself told the district court judge that he had sat for a c t about proper so my prejudice argument here is twofold it was not prejudicial because the district court could not no prejudice under plan to review the defendant has to show prejudice in order to be entitled to relief i also want to address that on his points about cooperation and the fact that there was a  sentence below the statutory minimum if the defendant's cooperation was to substantial assistance perhaps then it sounds like you're splitting hairs pretty pretty finally they're risking this kind of an issue with violation were you were you to promise to tell the court about the cooperation and then you want to split it to draw a line between a safety valve proper and cooperation when the government promises to tell about cooperation it gets to decide what counts you know obviously gets to decide what counts for purposes of five k one or advisory record about what ought has a discretion to determine what constitutes cooperation but there's nothing that precludes the defendant some say from disagreeing with the government's assessment that certain behavior activity trust if you did cooperation and you disagree with the are pleading guilty he did not provide the type of information or he did not provide the type of activity that rose to the level of cooperation and that the government was under no obligation to advise the district court  you were not going to indicate that he cooperated your honor it's in the record in the government some c memorandum the government details how mr counsel not cooperated and how it went into specific details with respect simple recently seeing which again would result in mr cowan's receiving the exact same sentence there's no basis here to let mr collins withdraw from his guilty plea based on information that was disclosed  district court so a record seven hundred and fifty nine page to the government argued that my client didn't continue to cooperate and just detailed the efforts that he made your today the government's argument about his cooperation so the government is again in our view confusing five k one with its duty under the police agreement paragraph a lot and the two things are different so the government can withhold the five k one no problem we don't have any dispute with that but it obviate the other point it doesn't allow the government to fail to make good on the plea agreement and that was the quid pro quo that my client get the benefits of the plea agreement excuse me as enticement we agreement ultimately the benefit the government is talking about prejudice by way of a reception saying and saying that this is off or not because he's going to get the same sentence it's gotten the lower statutory sentence asa bill and that all makes sense if the single valuable the remedy and to proceed to trial it's a simple as that to talk about the sentencing cases is not helpful to talk about i k d one is not helpful we're talking about the cli agreement and we're talking about the election of remedies of the underlying problem the district court didn't have a chance to pass just thank you