question one when when we have such a record it makes it clear counsel must have known and then the record is silent completely as to whether counsel had a discussion with his client about that waiting for instance or argument necessarily assumes that we need to draw an inference that in the absence of proof that the lawyer spoke with the client you need to infer that he did  for the government who is a late and ineffective assistance claim here and really it's directed at the first of the children turn he's if you look in the record of the first attorney represented the defendant for the first six months of the nine which is are in motion to a management or a correct of the indictment it's far from a case of both defendants for the obvious reason they were seeking to change the citation in a conspiracy count which didn't inform the client or promotion or of the room correct in the indictment now whether the defense attorney even has an obligation to tell the client about what seems to be a ministerial change in the indictment or which one is prompting a real seven motion which is clearly going to be granted i mean there is no substantive basis at all for denying our motion and query whether a defen attorney in an ad circumstance has to consult with a client about a technical legal issue right that one changes the potential sentence there's its central question about whether a defense attorney should inform a client of the sentence that he's facing that's that's really almost a separate issue from the issue or for all should the government be permitted to make this change to be indict and it's one thing to say this you know what attorney or to inform the client of the statutory minimum here five years it's another thing to say the attorney has to consult about that the technical rule seven ce the conspiracy the correct conspiracy count charge eight forty four as opposed to marry the original indictment even referred to the conspiracy to violate section eight forty four i know that was clear at eight forty highers correct everyone agrees that the language and the body of the count probably track the language of both in a situation where it's clear that there is some judicial obligation to inform the defendant of a minimum if it just simply wouldn't be prejudice if it were the case that  sure different people talking you have the second defense attorney who i think charitably read what he's saying is wrong i discovered that initially i thought there was the if you're mandatory that bets i think when he said he's not saying i myself was in the dark throughout the whole proceedings he's trying to say i felt i might have been able to say that gotcher of emotion was never granted to correct that's his story emotion and then at the sentencing itself the judge has addressed him on the issue of whether he wants to proceed pro se or continue with the second attorney in understanding that the statutory penalties were other than they were complaint was quote unquote meaningless because he had gone to trial so even if he threaded your way past the gaps in the are you confronted her basic legal question which is is there some constitutional right true you know all the statutory penalties in a situation where it's but then later in the morning really doesn't affect the analysis because as the district court itself later recognized at the sentencing per proceeding the magistrate shota originally granted that thank you yes thank you