the information regarding a waiver of the partition is saying correct then the information any advice regarding up he'll of that way were sort of carries that  expressing her view of the law but in letting your client know what her view of the law was and at the same time say you going to feel a need said that at least a couple of times so i pause when you say given correct advice i think i know what you mean but it's not entirely fair to describe what she gave incorrect advice and a story she described how the process would work the only alternative i see is telling the immigration judge never to say anything well most long that way but i don't think other issue the law has just recently changed i realize that to a one point two the only thing i would say that is that judge fletcher think there are two problems to that argument first is the one that has been the subject of some debate this morning and the government's position as i think echoed by the questions from each of the members of the panel namely that the immigration judge correctly describe law to the defendant at the time she explained to him his options it was a correct statement at that point to say that she was going to deny his request for a waiver it was equally correct to say that there was some chance that that would be overturned on appeal and in fact the judge didn't merely reference appeal of the ruling with this case she mentioned that that the first principle namely that waiver would not be available to the  question i suppose is a broader one of whether or not the waiver colloquy here was adequate actually the district court already found it was adequate that's the only question for this court is i think it's a mixed question your honor i think there are there obviously factual on this here as well as legal arguments actually the court clearly concluded that the defendant understood his rights and knowingly there remains a legal issue that the we can contrast it to the sort of colloquy that is required of a district judge when a defendant is trying to plead guilty there the court is required to have a searching inquiry into a variety of different constitutional rights which you defend and it's attempting to waive the searching nature of that inquiry is required because in the rule that in context the defendant is waiving important constitutional rights in the immigration context it's an entirely different matter the defendant was waiving a statutory right to seek discretionary relief in that context i think it's entirely sufficient for the immigration judge to simply street who is asking a defendant post arrest whether or not he wants to weigh those miranda rights he's asked if he wants to remain silent and the yes or no answer to that is pretty much will agree with me that in that fifth amendment context the rights of a defendant is waiving are much more important than the statutory rights present in the immigration judge honor in order to obtain the third level of acceptance of responsibility under the guidelines there's a two prong analysis so forth in the guidelines the first is whether or not the defendant  effect confessed or voluntary admitted his involvement in the offense that just didn't happen in this case and the district court so found number one at the time of his arrest by the court and police officers who provided false information with respect to his own identity defense they charged him with thirteen twenty six violation and mr martin