written agreement in other words the argument was made is whether good faith and fair dealing was breached in this case mr anderson's admits that lieberman was not fair or fully voluntarily voluntary and knowing that the government was aware of certain information that would significantly increase his guideline range when it negotiated plea agreement but it didn't disclose that information so i'm sorry to be clear you're not arguing that there was a breach of the plea agreement it's a you know it's ok but isn't your argument not about performance of the contract but more about the formation of the contract if there are places in in my writings that i did read it should be that i don't think terms of what did they negotiate with mr anderson what did mr anderson believe he would get out of the agreement and were his beliefs met well lots you know that i mean this happens all the common a contract with some civil context or are here that there may be expectations that people have but you look at the terms of the contract and you're got about the four corners of the contract is there with it when the spirit of the contract is evade it and the government in this case knew that they had to informants that they had conducted interviews with prior to entering into the room with mr anderson these two informants knew of drug way that ended up being once he gets to the marijuana place in essence about forty eight times what was pled in the indictment and when the contract was executed as most of the government plea agreement state they refer to rele conduct and they referred specifically to the other drug weights in the accounts that would be to smith's go i believe the fact that they specifically talked about relevant conduct in the contract that they knew that there was other relevant conduct that they didn't meet that is evading the sort of the contract that's why it's a it's a breach of the code in good faith and for being ready you have a case that's ever taken this t wasn't clear on whether it meant terms of imprisonment and parole or just the term of imprisonment and because the end presented information that he understood it to be a seven year total sentence including i guess what would be equivalent to supervise at leas they agreed with the research for or which included this inflated drug weight and at the time of the sentencing hearing so you think i was at the hearing they should have done what argued for a sentence that would have been consistent with the drug wades associate only with the information in the indictment correct so they were obliged to argue for that sentence at sentencing isn't isn't that kind of an obligation usually reflected in a plea agreement as in the you know we have that would put forty eight times the drug weight on a defendant when the indictment you know gives a certain amount that's you know one hundred and forty eight of that that it is clear that that's not that  know range for drug ways or methodology of the time and drug way of agreement that they're only going to consider certain factors and setting that are setting a limit or setting a specific sentencing range based on that all of which the government i breach that they wanted to but it seems like to me that the that's one of defense coun obligation of representing her is to negotiate those terms or at least making mario as part of the negotiation a blue green i completely agree with your honor  you're aware of the fact that there may be some other different ways out there mr anderson however was not represented in that manner and as soon as his attorney came to him with these additional problem weights specifically talked about in the plea agreement this enormous amount of other relevant conduct does not well that that's our position your honor the fact that the government did mention the relevant and did know what other relevant conduct at the there in this case right that's correct and while i understand that it usually needs to be really conclusive from the record i have clients often that we don't want to raise that issue this is one of the only cases where i i thought that i have legitimately made th argument that the record show and as judge eighty just pointed out usually you might want to stipulate to the drug of mallets but mr anderson as soon as he was aware of these additional drive him out he started writing the court because he couldn't he didn't seem to believe the his attorney was acting on his hat and this is his guilty plea hearing was continued why at his sentencing hearing was continued once and the chris richardson i understand that mr witherspoon wrote this green right yes your honor and he was the united states attorney that was involved in the case right yes your honor but he's not here in the courtroom today that's correct your he accusation that the government did not turn over proper statements aren't they the agreement that the government knew that there was a large amount of related activity it knew about it and it entered to court and tell us that but apparently he's not and i did read his brief are saying that either i thought his brief read accepted the fact that he knew about this pretties other charges but did not relate it in some record somewhere yes your honor it's in our discovery log well that's not district court and i would also point the court's attention to mr anderson's own statement in the letter he wrote cor he states i felt like i had to take a plea because he referring to his attorney came with the statement from doris crap which again provides evidence in the record that this defendant mr anderson had that receipt is probably statements before the date of his no i don't know that it does because he could be talking about when he alternately went to court i mean i read that too but i wasn't sure that that i must say i had a whole different i thought to that the government said yes this is what happened but it's ok but claim st even if we acted in an underhanded way we can get away with your honor your question is not our contention that we acted in an underhanded way but no no even assuming so we're going to the even assuming yes right even assuming we that is that is knowledge and understanding that there are additional things out here that me at and i can't wait until the government produces those in discovery or i think lee now you know what strikes me is that mr anderson is sort of laying his life out there he is writing things that are on the record government is putting things in a closet somewhere only known to the government it's just a very and who has more resources mr anderson or the united states government certainly the government you're on a us government's position if the government had done this intentionally and i understand this is hypothetically but it's got these statements from craft entirely and it actually makes a decision what's not in them over let's not give them to permission yeah let's not tell the defendant until after we get him to sign this different set of yeah bad faith is ugly but just like they got the statements they don't want to hand them over they think they can get the guy to sign this plea agreement and they'd rather not have to pin themselves down so they hang on to the statements until after he signed the agreement is that a valid agreement my answer is have a suggestion of what happened based on the letters written by most cases that you think you could win if a prior fact determine what happened yes wrong right well your new might be right you if i thought your set of we knew about these for whatever reason we didn't turn them over that's a bad faith action and then your briefing away you said how is that that was not required we don't we're not it's not something that invalid that's what you said just five minutes ago no you're on of that i only interventional e in bad faith whatever you want to call it i said i'm not assuming any like that had me just intentionally they just decided why should we have to turn all this stuff over we'd rather see a reason get him to sign  as it stands i don't feel like getting into a big thing about stipulated sentencing recommendations let's see if we can get a signature on the sunburst and you said that's an invalid agreement your honor let me let me clarify my point  you did refuse you just didn't turn it over yes your honor in that scenario the case lost just that there would be no breach as there is no obligation incumbent on us to turn over all our relevant conduct prior to the for their own reasons decided no they're not going to be turning this over you don't think that happened correct but if it did happen you said that there would be an invalid and don't you stand on that is the night she's really going to make the argument to the contr you're out of the argument that the united states is making if we intentionally fail to turn something over that is usually something that we would want to really but in terms of what the law requires does not require us to turn over  of a defendant not otherwise for recognizing the law is it possible that the government decided not to hand this over because it's not relevant conduct anyway i mean can you explain to me your theory for why the concerns your honor the government speech says it's similar because it's all about drugs and that can't possibly be the rule right agreed your honor and i believe that mullen said brief is wrong we can put to one side the arguments in the break and you have a different argument you want to present  use the term in intentionally just that they did not disclose the information that they had and there was nothing in the rafter that indicated they had turned over this information prior and that's on page four of the government's roof and mr anderson so at the final sentencing hearing in my correct that mr anderson told the court that  same objections he took a break up the court was urging them to move forward because there are many delays in this case and he had a great with his attorney and came back on i