that's correct but that that fifteen year term comes at a whole host of restrictions it comes with thirteen general conditions none of which were explained to him in the case of entitled to more than six seconds to understand that term no i know that judge korman the district court said that those words are essentially self defining i would say that's not true you know that may be true for him to judge and that may be true for experienced counsel but it's not true for mr maldonado would never serve a term supervision before work and it's not true in the environment of a courtroom which is intimidating it's an intimidating place  because they happen so fast the court has a greater obligation you know mr mildmay i was given an offer in the day before he was pressured into accepting it that day he said no the next day it was really operating is only opportunity to discuss it w that we need to apply to a state court decision because mr maldonado the claim is governed by so not only do we need to determine that there was some sort of error here we need to know the court's decision that helped emissions decision was unreasonable because they gave they gave no indication of what they considered they gave no indication for example that they considered the lawyer for my clients but i would argue that that if we look at this facts it's clear what my client would have done had he had known and then it goes in the opposite direction not that it's not a reasonable him he said i have a problem with this i do not want to do that's he he wrote you know he filed his pro se motion two days later it was supported by by a letter from his lawyer he said oh my god no we that post release supervision which comes at the possibility of gravitation and additional jail time is custody now that hedge now that decision would seem to suggest that you would hold it even though you have reserved decision not in the past  n more so as the district court no it's there's a general standard here right and where a general standard is clearly established state court decisions must meet in the me tricks and the courts prior decisions are within the scope of the problem and i appreciate your coming back to supreme court precedent because i think you're right that the case law is clear well the statute because not clearly requires that the reasonable ness of the state court tourney's need to be something that the defendants made aware then how can we say that based on our own precedents or intuition and st that this is in fact something that the defendant had to and we may say then in a subsequent appeal of a twenty four even though a state court did something contrary to our holding that wasn't necessarily an unreasonable application of the supreme court's law and that's what i'm a seventy four supervision with tail it was explained it was mentioned twice on the record he didn't ask to stop the proceeding or ask any questions about it like he did with civil confinement which he was very concerned about and said was his only issue that this comes into play more with the prejudice inquiry but it also is evidence that he had received some advice about what this meant and what it was certainly there was no showing of deficient performance so compelling said that the supreme court hasn't decided to let me answer this question even in the nd circuit as a matter of first impression would come to a different conclusion so decision performance supervision that term was twice decided on the record during the plea colloquy and again he didn't express any hesitation clarification or to stop the proceedings indeed at a later proceeding where the same judge the judge said that he had not been taken by surprise by what the court said and defendant was then thirty seven years old i take the point that he may not have been on post really supervision or but he also wasn't a complete neophyte to the criminal justice system or minor or close to being a minor being railroaded in this process moreover again he was able to talk about civil confinement which was he said was his only concern moreover his contemporaneous statements you were in that kind of custody and the plea agreement that you would take in was unquestionably highly on that score you got five years in prison as opposed to the ten of the prosecution had been offering and the much higher maximum i believe  twenty five years that would have prevailed after a trial and that also undercuts any potential claim of deficiency for the to negotiate because they would have to show that a better offer was the timing of his attempt to withdraw is a quote in his favor or at least not meant to be against and there's no evidence of gamesmanship i would agree in this case  that doesn't change the fact that the nd argument wasn't compelled to have that fact predominate over all the others particularly in a context where in open court under oath he had sworn that he understood what was going on after the term had been mentioned on the again there is no supreme court case law saying that this really supervision is a direct consequence about which the clay court had to say anything at all but even if the plea court had to say something it did say something court don't go beyond that certainly don't go to the degree that e's asserting in his brief that he had to be aware of restrictions on his ability to travel or visit ours those are often absent from even in federal court under the higher rule eleven the fact that my client appeared under and asked questions as alert my client may have appeared the burden was not on him to make sure he understood the terms of the fact that he may have asked questions about  yeah i mean he he says that he told him about it the context is an hour before his plea in a in a in a rushed process where he acknowledges that they didn't really get into it and that he didn't understand the term and he wasn't focused on it so you know it in that case and also he's changing his story from from one letter to the next two months right appearance the next and he's expressing confusion in open court about these terms and about other terms so it doesn't appear to me by this record that he had a solid grasp of what what my client was facing in order to properly i thin and had a short window one hour  weighed and informing defendants here as a direct consequence right so having held that and given that and if you agree with me your honor and my client's to press his rights were what these are the general standard and general standards matter general standards or what you yourself have held and what did your state or to tell i'm just responding to what my opponent citing his case is about what what a direct consequence is in new york state laws are the ones the appellate division didn't even consider my client's post fleet protestations so you know it ignored it ignored the due process their decision ignoring the due process arguments entirely you know so we're in a situation where the appellate division did not consider these arguments where judge harmon and your prior decisions in general supreme court standards indicate that these are real arguments you know my client immediately decided he didn't realize that he had made the wrong decision he immediately tried to correct that decision and he was given very little advice six seconds of what he would know it income for him for fifteen years after his release and a muddled one hour in the pens with his lawyer to understand something that he was then rushed into a his clique and it spent the past eleven years regretting in trying to get back and it is of great significance to him the carts are all term the term of actual incarceration in prison has passed yet my client is still fighting this because the onerous term that he still faces matters to him it mattered to him within five seconds of leaving that courtroom and it matters to him now and the court failed him and his attorney failed him and th