may please the court there are two issues presented by this case both of which ask the same question whether this portion say at this stage that mr saltus ineffective counsel failed to notice the systematic exclusion african american and hispanic jurors from the beer you refer to systematic exclusion that is as i understand it the contention is that the prosecutor exercised one  highlight that the only evidence that we can tell from the current record is that there are any reason to believe that there was more than one challenge against a black member of the benoit we simply don't know your honor i think that there's no reason to believe that there have to be allegations on a collateral attack and the only allegation is that there was a challenge to one so how was that systematic exclusion well first drawn or the supreme court has recognized snyder and other cases that even the exclusion of on three the fact that mr salter is a colonel defense attorney is insufficient to establish the first prong of bats and we know as this court clarified stevens in two thousand and five stevens one half read in a footnote it stated that perhaps all honor and if you don't understand why one would even be tempted to fall a lawyer for not producing such an expert unless there was good reason to believe that such an expert if produced would have helped the defendant no one i know that you got into this only in march twenty seventh team you can't be blamed for what happened or didn't happen in the district court bot we have to take that as it is and there doesn't good morning your honour's may it please the court tiffany arm on behalf of the united states district court correctly denied the fifty five motion where the record shows that countable that counsel reasonably were free for making of that's an objection after a criminal defense attorney was stricken from the jury and the record additionally had no supporting evidence for petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel allegation for the first time on appeal petitioner points to a government in this courthouse and contrary to defendant's assertion the salient characteristic of this for ten children or was that he was a criminal defense attorney it's not that he has defended pointed out has relationships with other attorneys it's that he is an active criminal defense attorney so that comparison with mcmahon where a defendant pointed to that actually was not stricken by anyone and that juror was also retired so the comparison of that salient characteristic provided the inference a prime facially case that a peremptory challenge was claim and we know it's not sufficient to point to a stricken jurors place to even make a crime officially case in the district court two affidavits his own affidavit in his brother's affidavit but none of those include any facts about which jurors were struck in why what race they were and what in the record made him think that those challenges were because of the discriminatory motive in fact the record shows no evidence of any questions of statements by the government that evidence any discriminatory motive and there is no evidence of any pattern of strikes against a particular group of affidavit the defendant alleges that he asked his attorney to appeal his case he included how many times he called that attorney he included that he wrote his attorney a letter and he included the fact that he asked his family members to contact an attorney and he had never received any information back that is many more facts than we have in this case and i would also like one last matter on this that's an issue the fact that the record is silent is not evidence of counsel being ineffective the court can imagine a scenario where there is no actual discriminatory i'd like to take a moment to address the allegation that counsel is ineffective at sentencing the record shows that counsel pursued a strategy at sentencing and the record also shows that strategy was reasonable given the evidence presented a trial the strategy in this case was to poke holes in the government's and that was a sick reasonable strategy given that this was a large scheme to defraud many homeowners of the equity in their home  of the defendants involve multiple coast humors including the defendants brother who was a codefendant they had multiple businesses operating on different names they kept court records and they even created fraudulent records in the course of the s memoranda that number was lowered and after the actual sentencing hearing where the council where there's a record of counsel advocating for the dock sions a value and raver that number was reduced from one point three million to seven hundred forty eight thousand six hundred one dollars as court points out there is nothing in the defendant's filings where he identifies an expert who doesn't clarified and stevens that footnote simply states that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances were the court can do that as was the court case in brazil appropriate remedy is a deputy sheriff harry second there is an insinuation that their record shows some strategy on the part of mr solmes counsel it's not either introduce an expert or as a batsman violation the record is actually silent as to whether or not there is any strategic reason here at which is not surprising that this court is noted on multiple occasions and in effect of this is a coun