statements the other corner of his mouth that undermined the verdict its promise how do we know that those statements were asking for a sentence more than fifteen months rather than responding to your client's requests for home detention instead of custody  more than just about the temporal scope of the of the recommended term of incarceration the clique raiment contain more promises the plea agreement contained promises that  parties could offer additional facts that's correct and i think that's pivotal your honor the word facts is what's pivotal because the government went beyond stating facts the use speculation innuendo inference this is a matter of fact in the record the government of philip youth the word inference they said we looked at mr chen's location that the tracking tracking his movements vehicle and saying we we see that he went to these places i mean for them to have violated the plea agreement which is like a contract wouldn't we need to go to point to something in that contract that says they can't to do what they did and i'm having trouble finding what your hope is i mean there's nothing in the plea agreement that says the government can argue inferences i think the hook your honor and what's essential is that under contract the government the government who drafted the plea agreement and it's it's well established that if you haven't begun with terms of forensic what's the ambiguous term i mean they promise not to argue for more than fifteen months i don't think i don't see anywhere where they did they promise to agree to the minor role adjustment they did so where the other promises i'm not sure where the promises that you think they violate i think there's the letter and the spirit the letter says that the government can only present facts and at the sentence proposed by the government it's below the fifteen months that was agreed to but your client would like home detention as the outcome correct and so the real issue in the sentencing is is home detention justified and i don't see how any of the discussion that was offered you know would not be relevant to that question ok i mean the judge of course was kind of bent on the one year we see that right even you know a day more than the government was proposing but i don't see how any of that discussion is are a breach and and the government is required to strictly abide by the terms of an item and i agree with with that proposition but it all has to be looked at in the totality of the government no where does it say the government has to support home detention does it know your own ok so now the government in order to say ok the break point here really is should we have detention or should we have imprisonment as i understand your argument it's more than that it's about expanding the scope of what the parties agreed to what they would reasonably understand that it would be too well just for a hypothetical to the court  justice i think he can speak english when in fact opposing counsel came back hard saying he can't speak english but insinuating that he's not insinuating seanie that he's been actively involved in the prosecution industry in taking advantage of exploiting women but i'm a woman for many years and many years connotes a very long time but that's not what's in the please greenman so i think what was what was upsetting to trial counsel and i'm looking at the record which was very concerning client at that point be getting rid of the plea agreement and going to trial or going back and having another recent and saying it seems like those are the two options but you want to third thing am i right about that yes how do you justify the third thing you seem to be trying to get you mean in terms of a recent incident well so it seems like one option would be to go back and have a sentencing hearing where the government doesn't argue for more than fifteen months is that what you're asking for you could be bringing regardless of whether there was a breach there right yes yes so this whole thing about a breach i mean it is your only point of all this is really that you want a sentence in between and before a different judge which you could be asking for even without this whole breach argument but what really really important for my client and for important for many clients who who are immigrants is what is the immigration impact and that's why they have the phrase in there about  being an owner or manager or manager of or supervisor of the business it's very important immigration consequences often far more far far more important than the length of the sente objected to during the sentencing hearing that these statements somehow go beyond the scope of the plea agreement you know and but the district judge responded in effect because he had sort of different things in mind so it doesn't seem there's ever a morning your honour's may please the court michael morgan for the united states mr chen pled guilty and agreed to waive his appellate rights under an agreement in which the government agreed to recommend a sentence of no more than fifteen months and agreed to stipulate to a two level  my role adjustment and a three level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility the government advocated for both guidelines adjustments and recommended a sentence less than sensing cat that's just not a breach of the plea agreement under any reading of this record so unless the court has any specific questions about why that's a breach i have very little to add i would just want to simply point out that with respect to the preservation point defense counsel comments about the prosecutor string the plea on the plea agreement was based on his some he had an understanding that if a fact was an admitted in the plea agreement somehow or other the government wasn't allowed to illicit that fact but that's just directly contrary to the play agreement the plea agreement specifically reserved that right to both parties and the defense i would point out went beyond the plea agreement advocating for it sentencing recommendation which it was entitled to do but the government was entitled to do likewise there's just simply no duty of recommending what's in in the terms of the pleader eamonn it's much more than that you look at the totality of the circumstances you look at whether or not that the government violated the spirit and letter of of the plea agreement it's not so simple thank you i think you have a fair point about the scope of the review so thank you for the rebuttal the case of united states versus janice admitted and thank you both for the argument