please the court counsel my name's daniela some of the federal public defender's office i represent renee perillo she raises two issues in this case first is that the district court used its discretion when it denied her emotional withdraw our pleat without addressing the entrapment and outrageous conduct outrageous government conduct defenses that she presented after being jailed for eighteen months and being badly weakened during the process m agreement at the time she didn't know that she had legal defenses and therefore was unaware that she could do what her new way or attempt to do for her and that was to withdraw her plea he entered  talked to me for a minute about how one deals with a waiver of the right to appeal when we have this kind of motion to withdraw the plea agreement which is denied it's not that it's not a motion such as the ones we see in twenty to fifty five's where somebody says there was ineffective assistance of counsel tainted the whole thing you know i'm out so i know whether the waiver applies as in your honor because for the waiver to apply t district court says what have you shown me to show that this wasn't knowing involuntary oh you said you lied during the entire plea colloquy that i went through before that's not good enough right but that does not address the legal defenses right so the judge was focused on did her answer satisfy the eleven colloquy but under grohl the judge had to do something different the judge had to address whether or not under the circumstances there had to be an evidentiary hearing or he could tell the district court she wanted to make that she was not allowed to make i don't think that's what happened so i don't either right and so it was incumbent under grohl for the district court to do one of three things  reject with stated reasons why the evidence was insufficient for her to now try to withdraw the plea based on the tender defenses or to allow an evidentiary hearing right in the la doesn't do what is required under rule but and so why not when all is said and done looking at the reasons that you're now raising assuming you get over all these trial level problems you're raising entrapment in your raising outrageous government conduct entrapment seems to me and extraordinarily weak argument in light of everything she had done before she winds up in jail you know she's she's for her to say that she's not predisposed at the cases since then we've said that we don't have a freestanding theory to that effect in this court file but if i can address those sure take the first order to the supreme court and sad that there is a defense for the supreme court speculated that there might be an russell your brief seems to assume that this is solid and stamp which the law i haven't seen a case that actually applied to it yet right you well the circuit authority that we cite is on one side of the ledger the supreme court recognized the possibility the defense doesn't even tell us ability you can you point me to a case that has dismissed the prosecution based on the theory of outrageous government conduct no but you think well you know maybe your fingernails are being ripped off or you know or some some awful thing happening you know we don't want to totally rule that out the fact is there would be an independent ground that you wouldn't need to reach some outrageous conduct so we all agree that's it and from boyd forward there hasn't been any hint in this court that we do recognize it but what did boyd do with respect to contempt it doesn't matter at this point there's this long line of cases you all the rest of the stuff then she winds up in jail and ramos is somehow tracking her into contacting the hitman he's so we have what your honour's doing making finding this or proposed findings i suppose worry the district court that would allow you to reject the defects under grohl that's what you have to do the district court didn't do that and so your honour's doing some analysis today that would be required by the district court before  defendant has to know all potential legal defenses and strategies before she can plead guilty you know even knowing her way if there is a valid defense that she didn't know about and i would point the court to trust alarm that that would i'd ask whether the defendant has talked over potential defenses with her attorney i don't explore what all those are are you satisfied that you've talked through all those things if the farfetched theory that was not addressed itself in the police colloquy strikes me as a great way to undermine rule eleven i don't think so you judge because just reason is what applies to the withdrawal plea so if the defense didn't know about at the time and then became aware of it later i think your honor as a district court judge would have entertained with the facts were the law as to say if you didn't know but now you know and this is a valid defense or at least a marginal defense that's recognized there's certain there's a law that supports different circuits i think that that would be a different circumstance than saying across the board you have to know everything i'm not asking if they did to the government's factual closing in on a minute i will just offer that the restitution issues that we say the government's focused on foreseeability that's not what the benchmark is it is about is there direct harm and there isn't with respect to giving away a vehicle why were  waived because it's plain air they weren't waved it wasn't something that they have no part in the other part of the appellate waiver of the sentence part of the sentence the way it was a more specific judge so if we look at where there  restitution statute is not allowed to do this assess restitution on a person for damages that were not directly attributable to the fence conduct you know it wasn't here giving way to be a cause not a harm that's not direct arm and strong security system same problem and then it please the court brian writes from the united states i would like to make three general points which i think somewhat overlap with the questions the court has asked first well i think you have to start with the appeal waiver which this court's precedents of clearly held that appellate waivers include motions to withdraw a guilty plea so we think everything is waived but i do want to theoretical problem tad i think it might depend on the ground because the guilty plea itself it's what's being attacked this isn't a situation where somebody is trying to pick and choose you know i like this part of the play and not that part of the play which we're very clear on you can't do that but if you say you know to take an extreme instance you know somebody had a gun to my head actually when i pleaded guilty and that's why i want to withdraw the guilty plea and the judge you know maybe has video of the courtroom says oh i'm sure that's right i did not attack on the head before surely you don't have an appellate waiver in a situation like that so let me answer that specifically and generally specifically i can't imagine that the government would say if there was a video to come to a head that wasn't grounds for to get out of the guy i would hope not i would hope not to right so in that extreme scenario i would just hope that the equities would point to withdrawing a little bit to look at the legal analysis is that there are situations in which the motion to withdraw the entire guilty plea and go back to square one have a trial whatever happened strikes me as something where logically it's really quite similar to the ineffectiveness of counsel issue that we all agree let's you get out and that was actually going to be my general point i think the problem here with miss prilosec claim is that someone overlapped with that i think a lot of the things she is saying are really ineffective assistance of counsel claims and she can raise that on twenty to fifty five so there is still a mechanism to do the things  frankly i'm sure that isn't the wasteful i mean honestly we have her tackling the entire plea you're saying you'd rather us firm now wait for twenty to thirty five go through a whole nother round with her and her lawyer really didn't tell her about some promising approach to this case all say that broadly you might have a new trial in your hands so i think to establish that in general one would have to have a hearing and that's why we reserve these things to twenty five i would ask point out that to the specific claim here and stretch hamilton i don't think there's really any indication that necessarily an attorney has to tell a defendant about every conceivable but farfetched defense so i mean if there was evidence that an attorney didn't tell a defendant about a specific and fireball defense it it's somewhat difficult to envision that coming up on direct appeal but that there is a mechanism and an avenue to do that it's twenty two thirty five as mr ellis said that may be jim voyles we find this farfetched to didn't prepare for trial that is a great ground for a twenty to fifty five as far as dealing with this on both direct and twenty five as a matter of fact we essentially do that with almost every defendant anyway so it's not really saving the government or the court system any work if we those things should be funneled to twenty to thirty five which is what this  i now i don't think it's incumbent upon the district court judge to do that district court or gave its brother with a second attorney with their chosen with their second attorney an opportunity to put evidence before it to put anything before and really what we have i would encourage the court to read that hearing it's really stream of consciousness complaints from mrs pearl i don't think there's anything like judge hamilton said not only is there a lack of evidence but there's a lack of any indication that there would be evidence never did her attorney her say really was saying was that she lied during her rule eleven call that we the district court judge did not care by treating it as such her claim was based on that more than anything despite whatever complaint she had about rambus what seem kind of for what you know i was going to say the same thing here's a hypothetical this is about the car suppose instead of all of this happening in the car suppose  had a million dollar condo in downtown indianapolis and somebody invaded the condo and held her hostage for a while and she had a terribly traumatic experience survived it so she said i'm going to give my million dollar condo to my favorite niece and so the niece gets the thousand at the million dollar condo and then she comes and says ed is pressed to show i think a million dollars now how can that be right so you know you can sell a car you can sell a condo you don't suffer just because it's traumatic for you to be there even though i assume it was traumatic for her to be in the car and i assume it might be traumatic in my condo hypotheticals let me preface it by saying that's where i was that being said i think another press that's the million dollars yes we would agree that that would be far such and finally different in principle though i mean the car ten thousand dollars is not chump change  she she gives it away to a relative why is that a loss to her i think because i think we should not to diminish mental anguish and loss i think it's fair that she could have perhaps sold it but even if she sold it she would have at least theoretically taken a loss on it is mental anguish bodily injury to a victim which is what the statute probably does stretch i think that's that's what we said and pressures we said we're not really sure about this have an objection here more fleshed out i think it's possible the court would not have granted the restitution on that but and then we have the problem with the security system of the government pipes up you know we're not going to talk about the sick you know we don't have anything to say about it something like that well i think so we're not contesting the security system that sounds like well ok that's off the list and then the judge winds up throwing it back in so i know i'm somewhat in a difficult position saying that i think the transcript is incorrect there but i think read in context the defendant never ever objected to the security system in fact but why would you if the government what if you could if you thought as apparently the court reporter did that the government wasn't contesting  waste the courts typing what the government is saying is they are outrageous and miss prillwitz not contesting the security system so there's i think that is the better way to understand that is generally you would not say we're not contesting something whenever we're the one putting  and now i know the transcript says i am i understand that i think in context it's difficult to read it but i mean in context i don't think that is the best understanding you're saying the government was arguing for out restitution everything prillwitz says we're contesting these two percent specific parts of the restitution but not the security system and the government is saying they're not contesting it so we're not going to put any evidence on there and i understand that the transcript says we are but if the transcript says what it says the government thought it said something different to a rule ten or to the audio see what it says but we left the transcript as it is and i understand it to be the government was not contesting the amount that was then later awarded  so there's that the government's brief i don't understand it to ever argue that this was an evidentiary hearing so it seemed to be saying all along that the district court was correct to deny the motion and she that adequate explanation that's different that's a different part of groll so the government didn't argue what it saying it's arguing now in my opinion twenty to fifty five is not an exclusive that in for relief those are awful hard to win so we would like to take our shot now and if we have to come back and argue twenty two fifty five so be it but we shouldn't be precluded now from raising something just because she may have a chance to raise it again later in a different more difficult context and lastly this was an evidentiary hearing i would think that we would have had a