raising a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal and i know you've acknowledged that in a footnote in your brief it is your client's position that he would like to continue to but can you represent to the court that it is mr carpenter's clear intention after being advised by you that the court should consider these ineffective assistance claims on you if we do so we will not ever consider them again furthermore as our recent decision in a case called  is this is we just don't see this very often and we have repeatedly by criminal defendants that pursuing an ineffective assistance claim on direct preview is something that they do at their  confer one final time with her client to be absolutely sure that they understand all of the legal perils of asking us to decide an ineffective assistance of coun on direct review you be open to that i would be i would be grateful for that opportunity certainly when you want to waive any of us or carpenters rights without ensuring this is fully his  decision and you understand that you do not have to raise an ineffective assistance claim on director of you to in any way preserve it to avoid waiver to avoid forfeiture anything like that and then pursue it in twenty to fifty five in other words you can remain completely silent on ineffective assistance on direct review and nonetheless raise it in a twenty to fifty five application argument that this would be the time to do so judge repl any thoughts on that because we have taken some time on this issue you can pursue your argument and then we will take the steps as we've described there's no we broke ok i think you are the very much appreciated the the core of the ineffective from the armed bank robbery and the brandishing a firearm count you know the high that the known prejudice that results from trying those together and then the nd was a motion to suppress evidence that was in pain through an excessive and illegal warrantless search of a hidden compartment of the vehicle that mr carpenter was was found and shortly after these motions were filed by  attorney the government was ordered to reply and in reply to the a motion to sever the government correctly pointed out that it is within the discretion of court in the circumstances to the decide whether or not to sever  and mr carpenter was directed to file a reply brief i on the motion to suppress evidence likewise the government pointed out  in mr carpenter's initial brief which is that kids failed to describe a right to privacy in the vehicle and the government submitted a un force statement of an f b i agent who said that mr carpenter had conceded to trespassing in the vehicle and the court directed mr carpenter to submit a reply brief to address the privacy interests and specifically to the been an affidavit is wow in response trespass in the vehicle and therefore didn't have a right to privacy and that the counsel properly joined the the the unfortunate outcome here is that had mr carpenter been able to file reply brief he would have been able to introduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had a right to privacy in that vehicle and that the search of the government conducted of the vehicle was an improper search it was a inventory thirty completed by the home with police department how would police department inventory search policy do not permit the search of hidden compartments of the vehicle where the firearms were located at the describe this as an inventory search they fear to follow the procedures for an inventory search with the exception of the search of the hidden vehicle that had department in the vehicle which was done by a chicago police department official called in and much later hours later at the station at their one f b i date when i believe that this is a search for don't the automobile exception however that the f b i was not conducting the search it was the home with police department that their definition of the thirty's an inventory search should to govern here with respect to the motion to sever given the no prejudice here i think that there's a reasonable chance that the fractions with the court with mouth and carpenter and the government the court stated that the instructions were quote standard instructions that was used in just about every case so through that instructions the following day at trial significant evidence of his prior conviction for armed bank robbery with introduced both by mr carpenter and by the government and it was some of the last evidence that the jury heard before deliberating the court did not give any sort of admonishment following that testimony that at evidence of prior convictions should not be considered as evidence of mr carpenter guilt and instruction with stronger mitigating language to ensure that the primary highly profitable evidence was not considered by the jury is evidence of his guilt and i believe that could have also resulted in a probable cause existed to search the volvo for evidence of the bank robbery given they had a g p s tracking device tracked of the stolen currency taken from the bank robbery to the volvo truck during initial searches of the vehicle law enforcement found clothing worn by the robbers the g p s devices taken from the bank during the robbery in a large amount of cash and after searching other locations for the weapons including the trail that the robbers chose to the vehicle from the bank and the area around where the vehicle was parked law enforcement had probable cause to continue to search the vehicle for the missing weapons and they had probable cause extended to any hidden compartments within the vehicle as was described in the trial record the f b i after initial searches did not recover the missing firearms called a chicago police sergeant who came on scene and at trial the police sergeant testified about the method for this search testifying that a child approximately ten to fifteen minutes and what he testified he did was that he looked under the dash what appeared to be a gun he handle in plain view determined that this space behind the radio was a likely location of those hidden weapons and pressed on clips and ejected the radio and identified the two firearms this was a straightforward search for where firearms could be found and probable cause existed for that search and the only argument they had to send in appears to raise to did not extend into compartments but as a threshold matter this was a search under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement it was supported by probable cause there were card list of what a home with the police department manual said the was supported by law by probable cause defendant also suggested that the district court may have entered an order  the defense counsel file an affidavit to address the next point of defendant's argument which was the privacy interest issue i did not see such an order from the district court interacting they at the defendant file an affidavit but the defendant met never made a record of any privacy interest in any event the defendant argued only for the st time in  reply in this appeal that there might have been some privacy interest but that argument was not raised in the initial filing in support of the motion to suppress or in the initial pre filed an appeal and for the reasons articulated in our brief and in the supporting case all the cited defendant has not established ineffective assistance of counsel for either a failure to file a reply brief in support of the motion to suppress or briefs explaining that he did have a right to privacy however he was never given the opportunity to explain it because he was never given the opportunity to file or library and that over his stringent objections which are are me clear in the record mr carpenter had intended to file a reply brief and supporting affidavit explaining that that he did have a right to privacy in the vehicle i would reply brief and after david to board his motion contesting the evidence that should have been suppressed with respect to the the motion to sever eight and that the jury conviction i to challenge his attorney ineffective the the counsel that he never used those words at trial it's clear through his repeated objections to his attorney  will issue an order and i'm trying to think the time frame me is no way round you are in denver correct correct and you know where ms kerr mr carpenter is currently  restricted i believe to once a week though i would ask your honor it is possible for a week i will do my best the i can get a hold of him much sooner than i will give you more than that hence my questions will the filing the business we brown will be making in response to the colloquy towards the beginning of her argument we are now