signature was the signature that was on the bill of sale and that the license plate on the bill of sale was a license plate that had been issued in california after the date of the one of the declarations that his attorney filed this pilot term said that he was surprised that he said that that was his signature on the document and that that was the document that he had sorry because it was clear in just a comparison of the signatures that he didn't sign it and that wasn't the start so he had testified in the attorney argued during opening statement and i believe also during closing statement that he did in fact sign various documents that he that the signatures didn't look at all alike and so in matching no signatures from him to the signature on this document it was clear that he hadn't signed where did the government get that document from you know that i'm actually i don't know that that's not in the record so i'm not entirely sure where the document i'm sure government counsel can speak to that i do know that at the time that likely from the d first got the document but then at the time that the government attempted to put the document into evidence defense counsel said i have the original here and at that point then they went up to sidebar and the government spoke about how they believe that the document was fraudulent and then defense counsel said well then there's no way to be able to put into evidence of it's a fraudulent doctor so there was i don't know who obtained that document to begin with but i know at that point that the government attempted to enter it into evidence and did enter it into evidence that defense counsel had not put it into what the jury decided what was going to happen with the next fourteen years of his life without knowing that this man had severe deficits that he had problems with all of the areas that were focused on in cross examination he had issues with his memory he had issues with communication that he would only be able to respond to questions and give answers when there had been repetition of questions that would have rolled on line as to when counsel i would i would try may vary from just a just right if i agree that it's tough but i would say when there is clear evidence of mental impairment that no one's arguing that he suffered from a thought disorder or he had hallucinations or delusions or anything of that nature it's that he had a cognitive impairment that sounds like he was born with that affected these areas of his life he was a twenty year old man who was married with three children who had never lived away from his family away from his parents how would the evidence that you say should have been introduced have helped him explain the cell phone with the call at three a his family didn't even know he had that cell phone it's hard for me to understand how this mental disability evidence would have gotten him out of the fact that there was this call on the cell phone that he had well it in the defense counsel's happened that he spoke about while he was in line that he received a call from this neighbor seller who was checking on essentially his plans for that day where he was going what time he was going to be at the junkyard all these things that  happened and then on cross examination when he asked mr i'm sorry i'm directing examination when he asked mr flores a queen you know about it he he didn't remember having a call to his cell phone at all the explanations for these areas are one it has been six months since the time since the date that the incident happened if i'm not asking why you don't remember i'm asking if the theory was that he didn't have the mental capacity to really be carrying out any of this so couldn't have known what was really happening if the cell phone evidence just seems very inconsistent with that i don't quite understand how even on that theory that some of these things he might have been tricked or something how do you explain this that he has the cell phone that  family doesn't know about and he's getting a call in the middle of the night how you would have explained that away the only thing i would note about the cell phone that i find at all i guess strange is his purchase of the cell phone which he explained that he explained that he works at a swap meet and sells items at a swap meet and that he purchased the cell phone at the swap meet so that he could use it as a radio when he was crossing the border and being able to contact his family in that way and that makes sense to me and him being able to photographs that had been taken in mexico that came in as various defense exhibits and the curious thing about that was mr ford's prints in the record was actually shown the agreement and it was paraded around the courtroom but then it wasn't offered and that's why on s c r pages two eighty four and twenty five we had the certified d m v their documents that had already been exchanged in discovery and we were able to quickly look at it and it was also and it's it's not as clear on the record as i wish it had been but the written stimulation about the drugs was signed by mr flores occur in real time so the jury watched him sign that document and then when they were able to look at the signature that was on the sales agreement that he claimed was his and defense counsel from the trial now admits that they look nothing alike he opened the case on the idea that he had because quite had signed that document so now in hindsight he's saying he's shocked that he actually testified to that fact but he showed in the agreement he testified about it the united states put it in as a government exhibit because it is already been seen by the jury and we obviously saw it's evident truth value for impeachment now that the case was progressing from the united states perspective and chaired by judge hayes extraordinary pretrial diligence on the part of trial counsel with a very specific strategy lots of witnesses a very elaborate story documents to support story and then when the law is unable to be maintained up their hands and say actually turns out the defendant wasn't capable of maintaining those lies which is an issue of credibility not necessarily his intellectual capacity well if if he was mentally retarded enough it would of the cell phone that's exactly right nothing that doctoring off the saddle can explain why mr for as a kid i got up at three forty in the morning when most people are sleep suddenly had a cell phone that none of his family's ever seen before despite the fact that he apparently so dependent upon them lives with them they have to program his cell phone he's got this magical cell phone with and the idea of everything on a slip of paper attached to it he's in line in the port of entry he's receiving calls on the magical mystery as drug cell phone as we heard to it as in line for the port and he crosses all the time but this morning on this morning he's just really nervous and it's so nervous that alerts the primary officers he's got drugs in the car nothing else so there's nothing the doctor you know ask you can say for example about why eligible going into the trial and so he elected to pursue his trial options and i think that the fourteen years reflects judge hayes perceptions of this witness say obviously the  judge hayes who presided over the trial watched the defendant sit through multiple days of the trial interact with his counsel testify from the stand and listen to the veracity of his statements look at his demeanor and the way he testified and he imposed a for a fourteen year sentence and he was aware of dr nossies report at the time he did that and i think that that's instructive for the court obviously not dispositive when we perceive the lower court proceedings and what actually transpired here in regards to where we draw the line and i would i would just suggest that the uncontradicted facts and you are you know the judge has order there's ten of them and they established a level three child diligence that i think most of us would be well served to have received from their point of counsel and to move the bar into the standard something else would be a disservice to both what's required in the constitution and mr towards efforts unless there are further questions of the united states  he testified that his wife was the one who had programmed to cell phone so there was a family member that had the ability to do that or that was able to do that but didn't the family testified that they didn't know about this other cell phone that the head of the other family members yes his siblings and i believe months that during that time he noticed that mr flores a connecticut saying there was something wrong with his head and that he could have learned that based on these interactions he believed that he had a low i q but he didn't believe he didn't understand to what extent these interactions caused him enough concern that he felt the need to call his sister and ask his sister if he had ever suffered any head trauma based on his interactions with him to have those types of interactions and not look f to determine whether or not there was that limitations that he would have before you put him on the stand in order to testify when i started the lawyers decision with whether he should take the stand correct but it's his decision on how to present a defense and he had problems on direct examination he had problems on cross examination he was on the stand for over two hours so even if the attorney just went over questions with him and did nothing else that would have  hours to go over direct examination of potential questions on cross examination and lastly i would just like to end on the fact that the government argued their brief at twelve and at page nineteen that there's there's nothing in the report that undermines the overwhelming evidence that he fabricated evidence and fabricated a story to counter evidence that would show knowledge that an unknown individual created fraudulent documents in an attempt to provide mr complex plan to traffic and drugs dr you know his report goes to all of the areas across examination the government relied on to secure a conviction thank you counsel