don't not deny defendant that right during a critical stage of the prosecution and that seems to clearly apply to this case that this seems like a pretty open and shut case because it was it was a critical stage of the prosecution and is there any argument that he wasn't advised that he would risk these kinds of disabilities because he wasn't a lawyer and he was going to have to make critical decisions like that but it was the it was the so clear to the court that when one of these tough decisions came up that he was automatically entitled to have counsel representation the court did leave the door open in the sense of stating that you know the closer we get that the less like the less likely i'm going to be we appoint for you i think that that language is there i might prefer and then kind of and have the supreme court for good or for bad it says that there's a constitutional right to represent yourself and it's sad that you know order to exercise their right  which is probably a bad idea you have to be told that this is a bad idea that there are all kinds of problems that the constitution guarantees you counsel to help you with all this nevertheless now if that happens here we also have authority that says when you're right on the eve of trial there's a different dynamic going on and this was within a week of trial he didn't granted a continuance when he self represented you're in the aftermath now it's just the lawyers arguing about how long the person's going to be in the sentence for so there's a circumstantial difference and we're trying to we have to determine here and what i'm wrestling with and that's saying this is an easy case is is it was a clearly established at this time so that this trial court in the state would have known that when he asked for standby counsel him and makes his somewhat cryptic remark is it too late for a lawyer that this triggers a full blown constitutional issue that the judge just suddenly in light of the language of for it it self saying you know you make this decision you're going to get stuck with some bad outcomes for have to have suddenly it's clearly established law at this time before any even to any of our cases  come down on it that this trial court judge who was i think bending over backwards to try and help out saying look this is a pretty good plea in any event that we should say there alright for the judge to to say you know you're doing this for the purposes of delay we can't we can't granted but there's nothing like that happening it's more like the idea here in which you find in that district quite or two is that once you once you  exercise your fragile right it's just set in stone and and and even if you don't know what's going on the proceedings are just a mess and and you're spending nine years in prison because you don't have any clue about what's happening then it's too late and that's really not the law i mean it's too late i take your point but i'm not sure unfortunately we don't really know there's not much record what the judge met but when  he asked mr maggot is it too late for a lawyer and the judge says it's too late too late might well of merit in the judge's thinking you know we're a week from trial here i can't let you do this i not just because it's cast in stone but there are lots of reasons so what should on this record do you think there's enough for us to say under these circumstances there was clearly established constitutional right that point i would say on this record and unless there's a finding that that the request was made for the purposes of delay under the under this court's case thought you just have to reappoint and to go into the bigger picture the reason for that and the reason many feel makes perfect sense is we're talking about the integrity of the proceeding we're talking about you know whether the facts are actually being found properly whether we can rely on and on the proceeding i mean the right to counsel is real central so unless someone's up there in that they're trying to well that's the purpose if the intent is to delay and here there's absolutely nothing in the record nothing in the government's phrase nothing in anything the court said that said where the court said look you're making this this request a delay that there's no there's no there's no concept that he made the request stated that you must reappoint if it is a critical stage you must and the only way to not reappoint is if the defendant's reason for making the request is to delay not the outcome to life but the reason is to delay if the court finds that and the overall reason for this is that you just cannot trust that the proceeding has been decent if you've got someone that doesn't even probably have a high school degree who's trying to represent themselves and so it just really goes to the integrity of the whole the eagle system if we were to look at what this case is about it's our view it's a much narrower question than the question that has been posed to the court in other words this case really is not about the question in the abstract as to whether or not there would be a defendant under certain circumstances would be a touch of the reappointment counsel ok there may even may very well be circumstances where the defendant would be entitled to reappointment and for example  the reply brief that we have somehow claimed that the leader we appoint counsel at a critical stage is not contrary to establish federal law that's not the point in this case because we never get to that point the question is what is the import of what occurred in that proceeding and was there in that proceeding prior to the sentencing proceeding so for example the post trial cases cited do not apply and they certainly don't control and they had this corpus context the question is what is the what is the significance of what happened there was that a request to reappoint counsel we know it was not deemed a request to reappoint counsel by petitioners lawyers  state court state appellate court because no such claim was ever raised in state court and we know that it wasn't a claim in the federal court because it wasn't raised as a claim in a federal petition nor was it a the unusual step of myself filing like thing excerpts in this case because one need only review the record in this case to see that this claim was never raised much less addressed by the confronted with it but that regardless and at a minimum it was incumbent based on the well established procedures in this court the fact that such a claim that is the claim that in fact the judge was confronted with such a request that  presented to us as it was and in full measure he had asked for a point of standby counsel in that proceeding correct all right and he and the judge said i'm not inclined to give it to y didn't elaborate much on that and then the defendant is struggling with this issue when the judge tries to help him out by saying you know invoking his own criminal law experience on right up to the edge of giving people advice to him and saying as you're confronted with this take it or leave it and here are some thoughts about in effect why it's maybe a good idea to take it at which point maggot says is it too late for a lawyer now he's already been denied standby counsel and the judge says in effect yes it's too late without going into any of the judge clearly appreciate the dilemma that's confronting the defendant and the judge clearly knows that the defendant has asked for counsel to help for standby counsel and so why isn't that record sufficient to put any savvy trial judge which this one clearly was sensitive to six limited issues on notice that and that's why  counsel for the defendant what the what the rule is is it that the judge should have and she's arguing automatically then under these circumstances reappointed or appointed coun or at the minimum should have done more than he did so that we would have a record in which case the judge would have said no it's too late because it would underlay delay the proceedings or i'm finding that you you know that you're playing games with me or whatever and so on we don't have that kind of record i'm confused as to you know affect what the trigger is here is not a blank slate because of the requests for the advisory council but it's clearly as you say not a direct confrontation on quote reappointment so we're going back to the trial setting what's your analysis of what was put on the table or probably the consideration that i would add that that the court did not list there is a prior waiver and the extent of the policy we've had already occurred between the court and the defendant that is also a relevant consideration but going directly to your point then it seems to me the question is twofold first of all at this juncture to decide that this is an explicit withdraw all idea or an explicit withdraw all of the defendant's pro per status said by some specific authority to trigger some sort of new colloquy that fails for two reasons the first reason that it fails is that there is no authority that has been identified that would had a scenario that was just as the court described one we would still require as a matter of appellate procedure and he views corpus review that this claim progressed in the normal course of thing and i would submit that this claim the claim that the court is identifying or anything close to it has never been addressed by any court because it has never been raised well i'm not sure we need to go there  but the question in this case has to do with the interpretation of what is at best and in big us factual circumstances don't do you really have to do that or here the question would be well how the predecessor courts before this court in this case evaluated this question and my response is they haven't because it's never been raised here thank you very much sentencing because he doesn't understand this is really the heart of this he doesn't understand the giving up of his appellate rights as part of the plea a great thing that's really what he's really complaining about and that's not something that would necessarily have delayed anything so he does make that that request he says i don't understand my plea bargain i don't understand i'm giving up my pellet rights the court says you need to consult with an attorney and the defendant says can i get an attorney the court says not at this point so just you know he really doesn't know what's going on he doesn't understand the