in this case mr karr pleaded guilty to a total of twenty five year sentence for conspiracy to distribute drugs and possession of a firearm in connection with that distribution on appeal the claim is that he did not and he the court did not demonstrate that mr karr understood the nature of the conspiracy charge conspiracy a complex charge and the court did not take much time at all to discuss with mr karr the nature of the conspiracy charge the elements to question  his plea agreement he waived his right to appeal and i will that's that's correct your honor and there was not as i read your brief an argument that the police waiver was invalid and then the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him and judge mcevoy failed to do that in this case so the waiver should not be enforced where the defendant doesn't understand what he's pleading guilty to comply with rule eleven by in open court addressing the defendant and inch being sure that he understood the nature of the charges against him and that he was understood the nature of the conspiracy charge by asking him more of them just the thought that this three questions and one the three questions and one that the judge asked for did you do what the prosecutor said just said you did did you did you have a firearm when you did it and did you did you have a prior conviction for a drug charge and missed think our position is yes that that is that is problematic because it doesn't it didn't give mr karr an opportunity to truly understand to to the district court did not demonstrate that mr karr understood the nature of the conspiracy charge recitation of the facts was was very summery he didn't say specifically what mr karr did other than obtain drugs from the new york and the broome county area and sell them in the big into an area it doesn't it doesn't say how who who with the conspiracy charge requires that the defendant engage in this behavior with other people the plea agreement with the dozen other people yes yes  yes but rule eleven does not say that the court can rely on a rule levin demonstrating that the defendant understands the nature of the conspiracy charge what role levin says is that the court must address the defendant personally inform him of the charges and make sure that he understands the charges to the judge told you know my client may not understand this i just wanted you just know that didn't happen here in extenso that did not happen here conspiracy and he intentionally enjoyed joined the conspiracy the court did not explain those elements nor were they set forth in the indictment therefore the plea proceeding did not establish karr's guilt was knowing and voluntary if the court doesn't have any further questions i'll reserve time for a bottle thank you about that waiver provision and determined that he understood it and he signed it voluntarily and the defendant has offered no reason why this court courtroom force that waiver that should end this case even if this court reaches the that but for the claimed errors here he would not have pled guilty he has an alleged much less established i don't believe the further discussions america is necessary if the court has questions i'm happy to answer that otherwise  but for the air and then to find it would not have entered the plea yes that is the standard that we must achieve and they the argument is that because the defendant did not understand the nature of the charges that hasn't been established that the court should not rule that he would have entered the plea if he knew that the charges if he knew if you would if it was demonstrated that he understood the nature of the conspiracy charge that there was no motion in the district court to withdraw the plea was there no there was not and there was no effort to reopen this matter in the district court by saying i didn't understand and if i did understand i would not have pled so i mean i was in his attorney at that time if there are no and i don't see how you can say that you didn't understand i'm saying that the district court didn't demonstrate that he understood at the proceeding and that's that's what role love and specifically says that the court must  dress the defendant personally and make sure he understands the charges thank you you thank