modifiers the first part of fire that is important here is that it was person was represented by counsel what happened in this case was mr reps although represented by counsel was represented by ineffective counsel the state  purposes of discussion where do we end up here where there is no evidence for mr weiss and the form of we haven't accepted that in normal ineffective assistance cases we have in lawyers affidavit we have anything from him did render a decision performance where is the proof that mr haps also known as wise would not have pleaded guilty to the charges of messing violence but for the representation conviction even if it was valid for other purposes a conviction cannot be used unless the person was represented by counsel and that's true nail on the head and that is that there's simply no evidence in this record that the defendant had ineffective assistance of counsel under strickland versus washington there's a requirement that the defendant establish both that the counsel's deficient was the counsel's performance w his collateral back court agreed with him and why can't we look to that well the state court did allow him to withdraw his guilty plea as unknowing and involuntary which is a little bit curious because even under nevada law defendants ignorance of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea doesn't render that guilty plea unknowing or involuntary the state court judge and that the only document that's in the record is the order granting the defendant's motion makes no findings of fact or conclusions of law with respect to ineffective assistance is there anything on the record regarding his basis for the motion that the motion is not in the record before this court i don't have a copy so all we have is a state court withdraw the plea right mission to withdraw right three three years after the fact that they went back in the state court the state court allowed him to lose if you didn't make it knowingly and told him what did he know and what was the intelligent about others namely the collateral effects of the play well exactly and that's  affidavit sense as i said i recall that he asked me whether the domestic violence conviction would preclude him from possessing a firearm i may have i believe  answered in the negative my recollection is that but i believe he was under the impression that he could have a firearm now as this court said obviously in the federal case the defendant's ignorance of the fact that he's precluded from having a firearm  negate prosecution under the federal statute right but in any event even even if so even if mr buchanan and mr advised the defendant in state court first of all this never said that that that is an attorney's misrepresent misrepresentation of a collateral consequences with the exception of deportation in the case that mr patel yesterday he put a gun in his girlfriend's mouth hit her upside the head with an ashtray held her against her will and then dissuaded her from testifying against him now mr buchanan negotiated the dismissal of all of those charges in exchange for a single misdemeanor with two days in jail and a three hundred fifteen dollars fine now the defendant is here's saying claiming three years later oh but if i had known that i wouldn't be able to have a gun i would never have pled guilty that's suggests first of all there's there's no evidence that  that the state prosecutor would have allowed him to plead to something else that would have let him have a gun i mean i think that that the state prosecutor can down this much as he could or you could have gone to trial on all of those charges when the victim was right there i mean it's true three years later when the when the state court allowed the plea to be withdrawn the government couldn't prosecute the case they couldn't locate the victim anymore and the case ended up being dismissed but at the time there's just simply no evidence in the record that that the defendant was prejudiced because either that he wouldn't have agreed to plead guilty or that or that the government would have agreed to let him play to a different charge if there is something troubling  the fact that the state court permitted withdrawal because it wasn't knowing involuntary and then this entire prosecution is predicated on that conviction do you find that  but mostly because i'm very curious about why the state court did that i mean i'd like to have more information and unfortunately there's nothing more in the record under under federal law and my understanding is under nevada state law ignorance of the collateral consequences d unknowing or involuntary and so and so i'm not really sure i mean there's you know we don't know how how it is the district court went about making that decision so you're saying that the only federal cases where i mis representation of a collateral consequence was considered to be deficient performance that relied on the second circuit case in the united states versus quote zero which is a law that went into great length about whether whether deportation is really a collateral consequence and he more or whether it should now be considered a direct consequence because the current law makes the deportation virtually automatic for those convicted of a negative felony and the second circuit went on about how important that is and maybe it's to the point now where where a defense attorney is obligated to advise his client of this you know where even failure to mention it because it's such an important consequence the second circuit didn't go so far as to it a direct consequence but said that it's somewhat suid generous since you know it is such an important consequences even if it's collateral that that we're going to say that an affirmative misrepresentation constitutes deficient  neither the second circuit nor this circuit has ever said that misrepresentation of any collateral consequence constitutes deficient performance and i don't think there's any reason to go here in particular because even if you know it you know calculates the guideline range and says you're probably looking at this and then the sentence ends up being significantly higher there is a there is a point at which and say there isn't really a clear line anywhere but there's a point at which wh defense attorney is under no obligation to advise the defendant of collateral consequences now in this case yes if the defendant did in fact ask his attorney is this going to preclude me from from owning a firearm and if the attorney no it isn't and the record isn't clear on that i mean the affidavit is very ambiguous i my recollection is fuzzy but i believe i might have said no even if that's true you're still dealing with of a relatively  relatively insignificant as a as opposed to something like deportation consequences and it just simply doesn't doesn't meet that standard thank you you have kind of used  her for the record twenty two is pretty clear that was the focus will return the other return he stated he said i believe the amended charged event was not under the impression based upon my advised many penalties not