commitment to rule from the rule proceedings excuse me the other talking about mandatory detention it's very clear that the result of mandatory detention for the rectory automatically from the conviction i would like to talk a little bit  briefly though that a lot of cases amador real and very case which look to this concept of automatic and direct i think that is actually a very good description of the best way to differentiate between direct and collateral consequences the language of the case of who works for the attorney general is both the one who put my client into criminal proceedings and put her through proceedings and also put in a mandatory detention which is an issue i would point out that when a district court judge sentenced ms wayne to incarceration judge pius does not come down off the bench slap court is that when it looks at the idea of an automatic and there are consequences it should not take this formulaic definition and look instead at the practical effect when my client was convicted and she pled she was committed was we're talking about prejudice now another words there is a difference you're correct but i'm talking terms of prejudice if someone tells you look i don't walk around that it may be dangerous then you're put on notice that you know i'm going to have that card or be is it that you might get hit over the head or whatever but and there's there's a difference between saying you will definitely be hit over the head if you go down there but in either event problem i agree with that you are the difference is the difference between a stranger who tells you that you might walk down the street might be hit on the head or someone who's doing bound by law in our constitution sixth amendment to tell you not just that something might happen to you but that you are going to get a certain penalty now and that what it what it what is it that the lawyer said you might have come up with that you're saying in fact it's a guaranteed it's going to happen what is that the turns out to be a guarantee what specific thing isn't the you're interested in the conviction of the aggravated felony essential prejudice and this requires some speculation i'm not quite sure what you're sure i want to do and i'm certain the inherent speculation is it remotely possible that she would have got a better deal meaning looks to me as other government had her gender she's number three got a lot what are involved it was in fact for example had she been charged with and been convicted eating the betting she would then not be convicted of aggravated felony but instead be able to see cancellations move given her husband and her three children w case was in fact what happened the defense counsel even according to the defendant's version of events said that her she was advised that her immigration status could get complicated you know but you know like  clients all the time you know this could happen i wouldn't go to trial you could lose we could go to trial and you can get convicted in the executed lot of things but again and the important thing is that the would know what the law was anyway so i mean where he she sounds like more of a general problem with the bar you're on general problem with the whole system not the bar well your honor given that given the lea that deportation was the certainty that she would apply guilty no we cannot say for certain your honor but i can look at the evidence which is what the evidence is that she she was told there's no factual finding but just between what the lawyer claims and what she claims she was on notice that there could be some problem like let's put it that way but is there a big difference between there could be a problem and that you're absolutely going to be out the window if you plead guilty there is there is certainly a difference between it when if deportation wasn't for as important as she claims and this is not mr vice fike telling someone you could when you should when the truth of the matter is the truth of the matter is this depends going into deportation proceedings were certainly good as defense counsel mentioned there are ways there are ways yes of unlikely but ways in which she could have avoided the well if your best is your best argument here that she was a prejudiced b she had some notice argument in this case after being advised by her counsel that she could have immigration problems whether you take her version or his version of events to stand for the district court and i'm looking at page eleven of the of the defense excerpt of didn't i didn't know about still remain collateral consequences but but that's not the important thing in this case the important thing in this case are the facts of this case she was put on notice of the fact that there could be could be immigration consequences and by the way it's undisputed that her attorney told