of the knowing requirement to the prohibited status has been articulated and added to what was once the controlling precedents and one of the controlling precedent at the time that mr coleman in fact entered his change and pleaded guilty in his address momentarily but also opponent maintains that in fact under the rule eleven itself the change of police should in fact be vacated or that the judgment should be error that in fact there was an error in that it seemed to be clear and plain seem not to be in dispute the issue becomes whether or not substantive rights were affected and whether or not if that occurred those rights in fact that were affected resulted in the need for a remedy based on the impact on fairness integrity or public reputation of the  back in requesting very much the remedy that we're asking for today so i do not think that that is clear british and behave and i would suggest that in fact it would not be how we should look at that ruling conviction and i think that exactly what we have here because it find a mentally of fact the whole process when someone is giving no given notice of the true charge against them and in the case of the full elements of the charge against them counsel's knowledge of the law correctly would be that in fact it is unnecessary to explore whether or not there was knowledge of the status of precluding  how would you define the structural error because the supreme court and my reading of the cases has been very careful to limit what a structural error is and there are three kinds of things that you can't really it's case the court talks about a couple of examples and it talks about number one the defendant's autonomy in making decisions in their criminal proceedings and i think that this type of error of facts bad because the defendant has that have the knowledge to make proper decisions that just whether to go to trial whether to testify in that trial what to bring up or raised with counsel in that trial certainly the right to choose counsel is the type of thing  massachusetts the court does raise the issue of whether or not the harm can be identified by the air so if the heart cannot be identified that lends toward structural error in this case i would say the harm cannot be identified because when we go back and look at just prior convictions in the case we are now getting at the very moment that was missed notified or mis identif left out i should say that it's because the knowledge record would not be developed in the lower court because it wasn't relevant so it's hard to identify where that a fact occurred because as i indicated it would in fact the defendant's desire to bring up that issue if he did bring up that issue of not knowing his status the attorney would dismiss it because it is not relevant to the elements of the case and it would that in the few cases where it has been recognised i think in all of them and i stand to be corrected but that they're all are tied to some fundamental constitutional right what we're really talking about here is a violation of raised in obviously the case but i would suggest that they noticed the lack of notice has banned identified as the fundamental due process requirement so i think that it does not having the fans council things along that nature and i this particular issue as far as i can dial hasn't been raised in any of the prior  cases we submitted our twenty page a letter talks about a number of more cases that have applied playing air now granted in those cases it doesn't appear that the opponent was arguing for structural air  there are a number of cases where this is pending in addition to the gant case which is mentioned in the brief in this circuit this issue has been raised there's no decision in a case called hall and the six circuit and a case called leach and the four circuit you're saying that the structural error argument is being raised in those cases outright so those are kind of out of the ether along with this case and and again so you agree that no one no other court the court did not find playing air if we do go to the plane air how this seems like there's the davies case and then maybe there is self serving i think that's the one where the fellow had a i don't think he's ever served more than an even a full year at one time in prison and it's not if i'm reading these right a lot of his prior convictions are what i guess we used to call just the felony possession illinois which don't necessarily on their face seem like the traditional colony because it's a simple possession as opposed to a possession with intent or manufacturing somewhere in the middle which again was my case was fairly i have the extreme case where the defendant at issue was whether it even knew he'd been convicted some of these other cases how we toss all of these factors and into the next to actually decide whether or not this is something that would say hey you know i would've gone to trial on this i didn't know all of these were possession of controlled substance counts i didn't i was just in and out i might touch my lawyer per twenty minutes on each time served a little bit of time was out in a few months  their review the burden is on the defendant first to show in a case like this where there was a plea that there's a reasonable probability that the defendant would not have pled guilty and nd independent of that that it would affect the integrity of the proceedings now here there's no dispute that the defendant wasn't back prohibited and we know from  know five but this defendant and in by my count four different cases albeit three of them at the same time was sentenced to more than a year one time to eighteen months and one time to  illinois law and cook county but it looks it looked to me like these were not even under the statute eligible to be expunged then we just have in the government waiver for additional charges so by pleading guilty he was capped at one hundred and twenty months he was on video shooting another man firing six times to hit into another man the district judge very down twelve months because he didn't have any violence in his past and he was very drunk at the time of the incident so so are you suggesting that part of the analysis of whether he would  had he known required the menswear requirement he would have gone to trial and we look to the entire record in terms of what other charges he was facing in other words ok i'll take this ulti potentially faulty review may span the entire record and that he entered into a plea agreement with the title eighteen waiver that he was on videotape shooting another person in the back those are admitted he was prohibited it's just whether the government can prove he knew he was prohibited when the government would be able to bring it out of it in those county felony convictions where he was sentenced to eighteen months time of his convictions for which he received even those short prison terms but was paroled well before a year's time had passed when we're looking back to the the impact of the error we look to whether or not  that knowledge was in fact address not simply did the convictions of this changed the knowledge requirement not just the status so the status meaning that there are th