nine thirteen eighty one right now the second yes there was one yes just the second of the to think and specifically right now i'm talking about the supplemental letter bring that to the courthouse that we're going to you know you better be careful the conviction it's the result of conviction itself has to be they catered to understand that he has the right to despite she has the right to go to trial if that's what she was the delusion as a criminal conviction now on her record that this person may not w pluses period of supervised release which even when violated was not extend their rights that's right quite frankly judges your honors as a practical matter i have to agree with you on that she got a very favorable this position however in this i assume that's the way she views it i just can't help but wonder if she understands the consequences of what's going on here i just now it may be that the government will say look we're just going to drop address the mental competency issue in the context of a twenty two fifty five and either of those potential scenarios if you are realizing the accused left with no legal mechanism to challenge a conviction that may be constitutionally infirm due to her mental incompeten initial claim was made she was under supervised release from oh i see in violated she had vial and then she violated that because she was not taking the drugs but at the time i believe that she instituted this claim she was still under supervised point we have two separate appeals to briefs out there and that is the appeal of the district court order revoking supervised release what is  situation was that the government conceded the government and the judge all in the district court allowed her well let's not let's not have any more supervised release let's see if we can get this person some help you have nothing to add nothing to add radio other than i think forty seven the district court did the right thing and and sentence has been served no continuing injury as to the us the parole supervision issue yes judge and i believe the got the government as well chose not to address that specifically and consolidate its own her complaint as i understand it being required to ingest it by psychotic so it's like appropriate medications whatever that's that's not an issue that would argue prescribe the particular drug that she liked she was getting a different type of drugs and she wasn't reacting the right way she filed an appeal on that issue and i will agree that there is no practical solution at this point because there is no hope there is defendant received a clearly favorable disposition in this case and at this point if your honors were to grant her any relief which on this record i will argue absolutely you should not she would end up in a far worse position than she was in before which demonstrates not only that counsel prior counsel was not in effect of in fact he was extremely effective he was an excellent advocate for her and what he a when the court determined that the defendant was not competent that she needed to be sent to a facility where her competency could be restored she was then incarcerated she was in custody for a period of four to five months during the that she was receiving treatment at the end of the treatment period in march of two thousand and seven psychiatrists and psychologists who were evaluating her determined that at that point she was confident that she understood the nature of the both time the court gets around here and she's not and she's not if she's not in custody she's not serving any sense at that point then i believe then i believe at that point there wouldn't be jurisdiction and she's not she's certainly not have a conviction we are not arguing at this point that your honour's do not have jurisdiction to hear and she wants to she wants to have the chance to withdraw her guilty plea which could lead to the scenario the judge greenberg initially well made where she could be worse off but that's still what she is requesting that is which is requesting and in fact it would be more than it would even be worse than what judge greenberg is suggesting because chances are at this stage she would have to go through the whole competency procedure again she might very well at this stage if she's not taking her medication she might be found incompetent where again she would start over she would go back to a facility to restor would argue that the government would be it would succeed it certainly would have a strong likelihood of succeeding because the evidence against her is very strong if she's then convicted as judge greenberg pointed out you could receive an additional sentence of i but if you can't get the second prong or prejudice which i can't see here under any scenario you don't have the ability to have the regret and under under the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that's correct you cannot show that she was prejudiced because in fact she received a time served sentence under the deal the counsel struck for her which is exactly what he had anticipated and she never served any additional time at that point in time she demonstrated her competence as one can see from her engagement in the proceedings she was able to answer the judge's questions the do you feel your power is only one  which is not the same as saying that she was proceeded when she was mentally incompetent because there's two elements one she was mentally incompetent and two he was ineffective so what you're from the symptoms of mental disease to the extent that she's able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her and assist properly in her defense this is the march second forensic report correspond t right so how nsel having received that report if he really had no strong basis to challenge her competency and if he had succeeded let's not even look toward the future as far as we  today looking for a reversal right if he had succeeded in that argument she would have gone back into custody instead of being released from custody as she was under the terms of the plea agreement and the ultimate time served sentence she would have just gone through the system again only to serve more time so worse counsel here was as i stated at the outset this was not ineffective he was extremely effective and respectfully this is not a close case in the government's view in any respect the council was effective there is there is no issue of miscarriage of justice here all address that briefly because we are not seeking to enforce the appellate waiver as to the issue that the defendant has raised we're arguing that on the merits and the merits here point only in one direction and that is that the council was effective there was no effect even if you find the council is not an effective and even as a practical matter the results should stay the way it is the dangerous possibility is that we might have a person that's been convicted of a crime on  say i recognize that judge and it's quite possible you can you can reach whatever decision we're going to reach today without ever touching the mental competency issue but the problem is one of the problems at least is that she also when she agreement or the way first untamed within it if i'm following your argument it is that the most important value here from her perspective may well be to be free of a felony record that as a practical matter that's the only resolution and that could be favorable and indeed one could say looking at the procedural history of this charge might indeed be reduced to a misdemeanor you recall that in the comic we and of course she ran up against the obstacle that no it couldn't the problem with that of course is that important is that may difference here on this point you hadn't she had her wits about her if she was going to enter a plane but we have a psychiatrist record it says if the case were to proceed to trial would be unready for such demands at this point but as long as he's going to take a plea that's ok that was the analysis that on competency that was made based on the facts were known that's right and i guess my argument is that well maybe there's something wrong with that with a with a psychiatric psychiatrist report that tries to give us  competency exam depending upon what you choose to do if she changed her mind in going to trial then that that would have been no good according to this doctor and that's the one that the court used and additionally there's another problem that she didn't take the plea right after she was released she was cured in the psychiatric facility after six months of of anti psychotic drugs then she was released because she was cured but the police didn't happen right away the police happened another month later and during that month she wasn't taking the dr so who knows what we don't know what kind of condition she was in the day she took that place she certainly wasn't in any condition to go to trial because we know that even seven months ago even with the drugs what kind of condition was she and when she took the plea that day and if that's the situation we have  we're left with her ok a lawyer was not in effect of arguing with us but we have this play out there that was taken and result in a criminal conviction of a person that may not have been capable of understanding what was going on just for the sake of least with respect to competency to lead versus competency to stand trial does have a final paragraph the last section of the report opinion on competency to stand trial which states based on observation and interviews these are professional opinion was the q has now recovered from symptoms of them and disease to the extent she is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against her and the system properly in i guess my response to it would be to system what difference does she have the mental ability to assist a lawyer who's going to trial now that she have the mental ability to assist a lawyer is going to enter a plea well that's