litigated right there is an actual hearing and there was evidence takin so it sounds like there was a took a long time for the court to sort through what to do but the end result was that mr linder got an independent lawyer and was allowed to thoroughly litigate this right yes but that is not they i'm especially not doing that it states forces gather the supreme court has said  the defendant was not able to prepare for what happened the next day and then was stuck on the stand and prepared to hear it almost seems like the district courtroom there was a big hitting the pause button and there was nothing that the defendant was precluded from doing in the end right he was not left to like living in a suppression motion on his own get a ruling and then have a lawyer come in and try to you know clean up the mess that would be factor in the district courts a defendant claims that there's a conflict of interest with his attorney and the attorney greece and the district court agrees and allows counsel to withdraw and then he says well i'm going to ask the clerk's office to go to the c j panel and find somebody new and let's say they run into the problem similar to yours where they appoint a lawyer the lawyer dies before even meeting the client  things happen for a number of months let's say coburn intervenes who knows and it winds up being six months before finally all of these efforts produce it lawyer who finally meets with the client and you know starts filing motions are you saying that any delay whether it's a day or a month or six months is means that there's a perceived violation of the th amendment that well i'm not quite sure what the relief is that would then be provided is that what you're saying that any dilemma what's the difference here the difference here is that mr landor was told to represent himself he wasn't told in march or april or may basis for him withdrawing the cleat but let's say he should have been sentencing and say your honor i don't want to withdraw my plea but i'm innocent you would agree in that circumstance that would be under the terms of the pl agreement a statement and then subsequent to the agreement and that would be a statement inconsistent with the plea agreement that would allow the government to change its position so i guess i'm not court and not in terms of i'm saying i'm innocent of these charges and i want to which i like play on that basis but saying my lawyer didn't represent it didn't do a good job i said i was innocent and he didn't adequately go on he says i haven't felt right which indicates a change of heart he says that he was told there was no buyable option at trial and that he should plead guilty which he calls pressure but i would respectfully submit that if i'm told it's raining and i'm not being pressured to pick up an umbrella he says he's never seen incriminating evidence which is vague but you know what it's unclear whether for example he requested copies of the child pornography so the district court when it presumption operatically on the other hand he had those under one letter coming a year after the plane almost about a year in which there are which appears to describe a disagreement between counsel and the said what's the problem here and mr cohen indicated that i would refuse to engage with them he wouldn't even speak with them if you look at the transcript so the district court did not order him to proceed per se he said you can either talk to mr coburn about it or you a pro se but based on what i'm seeing i can't imagine what the problem is and then he allowed them time to speak mr bender again refused to engage with mr coburn so the district court had this is not uncommon again does not indicate coercion now as soon as mr landor indicated yes you are can i just i'm sorry just i want to be clear i understand what your argument there is so as i understand your characterizing the proceeding before the district court that's on page twenty one of the appendix not as the district court actually instructing the defendant appear pro se and thereby relieving mr covert as counsel but simply saying that you know if this is the direction things go you know in theory you could wind up pro se is that what you're saying you're  not are you saying that he was not relieved that moment i guess that's not really it now he was not relieved until july which i believe is two status hearings later and that's he was clearly not really it was mr covert kept trying to meet with them to discuss this issue to find out what was going which again it is is going to take time no matter what the circumstances are because we don't have a stable of attorneys standing in the gallery so you know there was never a lapse in the members intention here there wasn't there was not an actual conflict created by  that st letter and actual conflict has to be one that adversely affects counsel's performance he doesn't have to show prejudice but he does have to show that it adversely affected the performance we're going to cause to lapse and here mr colbert to substantive actions on mr letters behalf until they figured this disagreement out further he was never deprived of an attorney for what he wanted to do he was able to get conflict free counsel for his motion to withdraw it morrison has decided arguments this post clear but again that's the government move to deny one level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility but it beggars belief to say that this breach the agreement when the plea agreement explicitly reserved the government's right to change b the government did not advocate against the two level adjustment for the lay understanding of acceptance of responsibility which probably would have been a stronger argument but it took i believe three years of coast clear litigation to about explicitly about in effect of assistance of counsel after the agreement that that would be a basis to argue against acceptance points that was expressed are the descendant after the son you think that the government would still be entitled to as a conservation of matter but also under the guidelines to this is written and in this particular case the government was not advocating against acceptance of responsibility i just want to point out that this quite has held repeatedly that it defend it is not entitled to the acceptance of responsibility of  just matt it can certainly be negated by a post clearly disavow of guilt which is exactly what happened in this case not just because he continued to place blame as the district open on everyone but himself but he actually did a the outcome here the government withdrew motion just a few weeks later and we just require explicitly called this notion irrelevant that's a quote irrelevant to its factual findings and that it had quote no effect whatsoever on its determination regarding the acceptance of did say that this is not something that mr landis made up and made up also just in terms of whether or not your question judge an idea whether or not it was actually believed and i'm waiting directly from the status conference of april th two thousand and sixteen appendix to twenty one the court well i guess he can go pro se at the vet and the last and then the  they all relate sense and i think they are all significant sentencing issues the included that conduct as they had to victim number one was included outspent victim number two of the twenty one thousand two hundred and sixty eight month guidelines he was taking a hit for every bit of the contact he h