my name is mark meyer i'm representing michael snell who was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and also the distribution of a state yet to run it consecutively to but that's are the supreme court case seems to say that as long as you can anticipate a state satins that's good enough for the district court has authority but what's your response  sentence remaining under iowa law and so you can you can gas that they're going to try to revoke his probation based on his illegal activity and you could anticipate whatever word you want yes well  guilty plea agreement which is one of the issues here today mr goldsmith wishes to assert that the lower court erred in denying his motion suppress the out of court identification and evidence derived excuse the court's requirement that a pretrial motions explicitly stated the rule was that there has to be a specified pretrial motion in the plea agreement now in this case i presumption is that it's unconditional i mean if you look at the plea agreement itself there is no plea agreement there's no appeal waiver there's a language in there about challenging rulings on appeal and then looking at the plea coakley there's no discussion from the judge that language is even more specific than you suggest it is which is a side that you have to preserve in writing right in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse to charm a nation of a quote specified pretrial motion and i think the word specified as a little bit of work there which is you can't just you can't just throw it into general language you have to specify what the pretrial motion s what's your what's your response that your honor it again i know that this court has and i know adverse determination of a specified motion this morning about a spent some time discussing the specified motion portion i would note also though that the that section begins with with the consent of the court and the government in this case we had a plea agreement that but for the language pointed out by the defense was void of any discussion of conditional plea it didn't use the word conditional plea it didn't cite any specific motion of this language there was no discussion of any reservation of any any were pretty trial rulings or motions the record itself discussed that this defendant would not have the opportunity to withdraw his plea should he be unhappy or change his mind later what does that broad language is a very very broad reservation of rights what would it cover and the government's feel it's got these types of motions looking at the document as a whole without just that that but argue that looking at the law we presume when one pleads guilty that you are waving rights and so the self is a waiver and therefore you haven't maintained it so even under that language even if you to in the future the court will as kind of in the playroom and there will be a sentencing hearing the court will make rulings and it notes that you have the ability based on the playroom it absent somewhere else and in the agreement giving that up you have the ability for and he points to a couple factors that he claims were not considered by the court but the record is inconsistent with that in this case instead this defend it that information that he claims was not considered was within the p s r and at least a portion of it with regard to his children was discussed by the court in this case because there is a guideline sentence we presume that it is reasonable and there is nothing to indicate in the record that should not be so in that case that defendant also was in a situation where it appears in the record that he pled to a b one b offense is penalties then were impacted by this a fifty one it shifted it to a ten to life sentence based on the fifty one and then and that the court was within its discretion to make that ruling and you know counsel that's where i'm having some trouble and the supreme court in the sets her case says anticipate and i guess my question for you is how how risks being sent back to prison would argue that during the course of his time on parole he's actually finishing out the sentence he's under this impose sentence the time hasn't run he hasn't finished  court in iowa you're told if it's for instance a d felony that your sentence could be up to five years unlike the federal system they have parole and so you were still on pro but that's not a discharge term until you finish suppose though that we change the facts slightly and that offended commits a crime that is both illegal under federal law and it's illegal under state law the federal prosecution proceeds st but you can anticipate that maybe there's going to be a state prosecution down the line the federal judge says well because this was also a legal letter iowa law i'm going to go ahead and make it consecutive to whatever prosecution might occur in the future is that anticipated or is that different it's very different and the reason being in that you are you don't even have a case number let alone a sentence arrest cher the judge had a case number to be able to say it's the energy case number it's the efi case number i'm specifically running consecutive to those sentences in that case the sentences that had already been known and as we've discussed this was the defendant there was on parole so we knew essentially the maximum possible penalties and so the court was able to say specifically the sentences are the ones these terms these count i think it's a larger hypothetical and much less likely that after a federal prosecution state and he will then decide we want our bite at the apple as well so i think that's a very different circumstance in comparison with what variations where you know where the defendant was on probation or the defendant was on parole but the application of been filed or they were in state custody prior to coming into federal custody so i am not aware of  exact circumstance happened but i think when you look at all the other options that have been contemplated in all of those it was allowed and so i think this isn't a step that is outside of the previous opinions  there's a little bit of time for a bottle of one of you wants to use it up