that's correct that is technically the issue that you're raising here the procedural posture of the case is we were denied to just be court denied that requ to me the problem i have here is that the reason being offered to set aside the plea agreement amounts to saying you know i got a pretty good argument legal argument with regard to the sentence it's basically so that waiver i made that he made constituted by the plea agreement turns out in retrospect not to be as good a bargain as he would like to make today so we want to go back in time invite a stock that he didn't buy that i mean basically it there's nothing wrong with the except that the passage of time in the developments in the law and the fact you picked up things perhaps that the prior counsel has advised him about that it doesn't look like such a good deal anymore no our presentation is that there was a legal admit the second film the government was going to be allowed to group draw from their obligations which were through this missed the count to recommend the long term we want saying now we're going to go to trial we were simply saying we're going to stand up here colloquy everything and then the guy that has a has a change of heart gets it has some new lawyer come in to look at it and find some possible new argument that he should be able to get out of it saying this is this now is the direct appeal right yes you know i know this is it's so complicated as it is just to give you another thing to think about it's possible that the issue whether that is the rule the controls or whether we have to look at the fair and just reasons to with rather agreement as you argue and i know there are different schools of thought  we felt that the agreement has to stand as you know absent a showing it was involuntary and not knowing then i suppose your client might be able to raise the issue you know he'd be as petition by creating a record in effect of assistance of counsel if if counsels please write representation on the pleading that was really that bad but but there's no record of that here i mean that you're arguing there's a good legal issue and he should have gotten out but there's not a record of why i counsel did what he or she did right there it's not that i i mean i'm a trial ok it's a good argument but basically i think the law is not clear yet you know do you have any case saying that in considering whether the agreement the plea agreement was was valid that one can look at whether they were fair and just reasons to withdraw as opposed to looking at whether it was knowingly effectively involuntary because it was not made with proper guidance or without full awareness of the consequences so that the waivers aren't always effective if it is hard to tell exactly where to stop the cycle but put in at some level let me just change it doesn't let in the throat of the agreement in the grave that contains a waiver then are we limited to considering whether it was knowing intelligently entered the plea was and i don't know if it will decide and the issue on this in a way that would affect this but it's quite confusing and conceptually to me at least i would agree not a long time and t here and there's another complication they may face the twenty to fifty five motion and shows that counsel was in effect of in not having the same idea he had and prevails and instance but again remember the discreet court denied the motion and with a request to withdraw after it made the finding that the argument was unacceptable