first i want to clarify the st argument in the brief that it is not an independent reason for reversal probably shouldn't have been the st argument in the brief as government point out mr jones asked the court to reject the plea agreement the argument about the insufficiency of the court's reason in particular its failure to say whether or not it could impose the fifty five months which is the core of the agreement that's an aspect of how the events unfolded and how they should have should unfold in the event of a  him to proceed to sentencing and to have the court dispose of the case as it would as it determine was fair and proper which might be less favorably favorable to him there were before the court in the court have to scratch and simply to hold the guilty plea aside to to to hold off on sentencing because there was an outstanding indictment with more serious charges the court didn't move because that would not comport with rule eleven the choice is that if the choice the government let me let me put it in terms of the government's argument the government's argument is that he could withdraw his plea and go to trial or he could be sentenced on the information whenever and also be tried on  more serious counts so the choice there wasn't a choice according to the government and according to the court's ruling it was a trial or trial where you know levin are you were is your language in ru i would i would argue i do argue that the language that you have to does not withdraw his plea the court may dispose of the case and do so if it chooses less favorably him that you know of those those two options that the that the government posits and that and the court adopted are not choices excuse me not this trial the jury convicts on count one and hangs on count two ok you would agree with me that the court is under no obligation to proceed immediately to sentencing on count one correct if there is going to be a retrial on count two it would be allowed to as you say let's count one hang out there for a while and wait until all of the pending charges are disposed of and then conduct a single unified sentencing correct let's just stick with my head i can assume you're correct you know i would need more time to think about it but ok this doesn't matter because in that scenario there's no plea agreement and no rule of weapon no rule levon that that guides the procedure and here the court rule revenue provides that the court decide if the defendant just not withdraw his plea the court should dispose of the case dispose of and dispose of the case as opposed to the charge in the superseding information you mean even because he pled to one count absent an agreement from the government to dismiss the other counts he now can force the hand of the government to force them to dismiss all other counts even though there was no rejected right so how does he get to dispose of the case by having everything thrown out when that the government never agreed to that i don't think the judge can throw out the judge can't information then there's a double jeopardy problem perhaps s to take the counter meaning in the indictment and that's why it doesn't seem to me to be an abuse for the for the district court to hold and here in the end  and i think this is part of the government argument that this is a lesser included offense and therefore it would not pose a double jeopardy bar to the higher offenses no double jeopardy violation in the end that's the government's argument as i understand it well that's because the judge decided to to hold the the plea out there  got the opportunity to argue for a much higher sentence up to twenty years if the government didn't get but the government didn't get a conviction and a charge he wanted out of the plea so what do mean that's what they got they wanted they charged a different charge and they did not agree to dismiss it so it seems to me you're saying you offered them something less than what they wanted and that they should take africa and lo what what what really the way this would play out is that jones takes the risk if he is the use to his plea agreement he takes the risk that the government is going to proceed on those charges and there's a very good chance that the government would not he was allowed if it if frankly the risk that he would be convicted after trial was probably greater than the risk that the government would not proceed on those counts if he got the fifty five months or more spend the resources of going to trial and they've got a sense in that they could live with so is the problem just for judge judy pointed out that you can't put the government the defendant can unilaterally put the government in the jeopardy box and say you know what i'm going to plead to a lesser included offense i'm going to take i'm going to take not only the plea but i'm going to get sentenced at which point then the bar against multiple punishments kicks in and then it's not a calculated risk on the part of the defense as to whether the government's going to proceed or not but then the government's just boxed out because they can't go to trial on the other count because now you can close that out and jeopardy is attached definitively i think it is more complicated issue of whether jeopardy attaches when the lesser included offense but it but putting that aside for a nd if if if that counts for they stay alive when you face trial on those other counts and it's pretty easy if you have pending charges they're pending i it doesn't even come close to saying it's simply it's you save some time for a bottle we hear from the government may it please the court my name is nate berkus from the united states attorney's office for the district of vermont appearing telephonically on behalf of the united states i also represented the government at trial the government asks a court to find three things st that the defendant waived his right to challenge the rejection of the plea agreement when he in fact asked the court to do just that nd after the rule one thousand one hundred and thirty one the plea agreement was rejected the government was permitted to proceed to trial on the indictment notwithstanding the defendant's conditional guilty plea to a lesser included offense and finally that the trial evidence was sufficient with regard to a charge alleging that jones possessed with intent to distribute sixty seven grams of cocaine base the court is right to note that judge wright had ample discretion to await resolution of the charges on the indictment before sentencing on the lesser included offense in the information judge n jury example is insightful it wasn't the more efficient and would generally be more efficient to conduct as you said a single unified sentencing i think the the most pertinent case on the double jeopardy points cited in the government's brief is ohio b johnson i would note at the outset that the defendant makes no double jeopardy claim on appeal nor did he make any claim in the district court nonetheless in ohio b johnson in that case over the government's objection the defendant pled guilty to a lesser included offense where the court then dismissed a greater offense and there was the court found that ending the prosecution would deny the government  right to a full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws  immediately before the car chase jones and joe and sold cocaine base this is the same substance that was found roadside to a government informant and jones in jalan had in fact been seen with large bags of cocaine based similar to that which was found that was sold by jones and shell and immediately preceding the car chase as well as the cutting agents on the residue on the scale found in the car to which jones pled guilty those cutting agents for the composition of this cocaine base were all identical i would also note that the evidence revealed that this is of course an interstate highway not only are there no sidewalks but no one is permitted to walk on the side of the interstate and  trial six different law enforcement witnesses whose jurisdiction covered the location where the cocaine base was discovered all testified that there were no other car chases during this four day period there was no drug activity in the area but cocaine base was found  and i would finally note that perhaps most significantly the cocaine base was worth nearly seven thousand dollars which is what the government argued was what motivated jones and his codefendant to attempt to evade police traveling study cases that where the court including the supreme court that the plea guilty plea is separate from the plea agreement so in any case the defendant has that there wouldn't be any such thing as a motion to withdraw from plea agreement that is whether it is the issue of double jeopardy was dispositive you just didn't do it he had a right to with seek to withdraw from is fully and he had a right to a meaningful to make that meaningful choice thank you thank you we will reserve decision that way thank you thank you