itself is a contract and if we look at it under contract terms there really was no valid consideration the government after it to reduce the indictment by superseding any information the indictment charges for fifty of methamphetamine with a ten year mandatory minimum an exchange for the plea agreement they were going to offer a superstar eating information and reduce that to five grams with a mandatory minimum of five years and that was the understanding of mr revise that he was going down to a five year level also the government said well in addition we will not charge you under the gun nine twenty four c for having guns and the well i think still in order to have something in an indictment you have to be able to support that weston evidence and elements that you're able to prove and they would have been able to prove the elements required for a nine twenty four they did get an enhancement on  not have the necessary elements that they needed to put in even a dime they would have to show where they had certain information to prove the elements before to in order to charge for the nine twenty four c so in other words that was something they could could not even charge on because the information in the evidence wasn't there to support that and there was no meeting of their minds there was no mutual assent if mr early buzz was speaking of a five year but on the other hand the government was thinking still tenure and arguing for the ten year and in fact even in the police graham and they said well we're still going to go ahead and argue for this change year and for the additional amount of drugs that were were found in mr libby did not admit to those drugs being here as so therefore they weren't thinking on this the same amount so if they aren't thinking about the same thing it's the same thing as the peerless case way back in contract law about meeting of the minds they were thinking on two different things we didn't have mutual a stand on that part we can also look at the fact that there was not a rule eleven compliance with this particular case when the defendant was addressed in court concerning his plea agreement and the new rules according to rule eleven in making sure that he understand understood about his way or of his right to appeal those were not addressed there was a question of the language difficulty even though there was an interpreter match he really did not understand english to that extent that he understood fully what he was giving up he understood i believe that looking at j i'm going from a ten year to a five year and i agree with that because that's good and  of drugs i agree that i idea of have however i don't think he understood that there was a possibility and what the government was really arguing about as far as being able to go forward with more than five years and going after at least the ten years in fact the government argued for eleven years at sentencing hearing if in fact he's able to overcome this waiver then there's the issue of they're not going to announce before i go on i would like to reserve at least a minute for me about all right one time so i will there's the i just knew about whether or not the house was proper there was a dispute on the time whether or not it was an immediate or whether it was a five second wait before knocking and before entering even if it was still the five second they would have to prove that there were the circumstances such that would allow the five second and spies i could find they were in any cases that said that five seconds was sufficient time in order to enter a private residence and were this in mind the  motion that was brought in order to suppress the evidence i'm just not going to now answer was denied and this is what is on appeal within this particular appeal that there were not the circumstances that warranted the immediate entry into a private a five year mandatory minimum not the ten and so therefore it was his understanding that that's what he was pleading to and that's what he was agreeing to during the course of years clearly to challenge the quantity that's found in the bathroom correct but when it comes time to sentencing for sentencing he really didn't offer much of a challenge duty he did because i'm afraid of the refused of obstruction there's nothing in the record to that effect that i do not recall ever that exact where it was presented however it was presented to the court that if he does argue that he will be and there was an argument for obstruction of justice whether or not that should be ended and of course the court denied that because it was questionable whether or not it was him and what he purposely flush the drugs down and correct and he wants to go back and litigate whether or not he was in possession of enough drugs to subject him to the mandatory minimum which is equal to what do you do since two anyway and challenge the government to go and he's waiver is no good right we cannot we cannot see that the waiver is no good but the previous ok can we and then say well now you get the benefit of what you think the bargain ears and the government is fact look at the guidelines sentencing range below ten years which is what he wanted to begin with but we made the argument in the court agreed with us that as a matter of discretion because they found that attempting to destroy evidence he should not get the lower end of the guideline range we sought a high end the courts that ten years or one hundred twenty months but that does not mean that the plea agreement was involuntary there wasn't fact consideration because the father had the opportunity my brief to see a few times that he actually spoke other words other than yes your honor you'll see that his command of the english language is not very great in fact at the end of the sentencing hearing his own attorney said your honor i think that