good morning honorable justices i'm richard and i think you're up i didn't mean to shoot your way from the podium i don't really like playing as i'm sure the conservative commentators will tell you there's no justice in this court we're all judges will  certainly hope for the best but like to reserve about half my time for comment i think the court's probably very aware that the heart of this case is finding prejudiced and under the strickland standard when it comes to counsel's behavior as well whether it's reasonably probable there would have been a more favorable result and so the title of this case is sort of a bird in the hand right i think one of the most important parts of the findings and by the way just to back up for a second there is no doubt that the major street meets from findings in our favor of the bird in my ha rule was probably violated the man straight really went on to say no harm no foul and that's where we start to depart a little bit  felonies and at first blush you might say well so what and just i don't think the briefs go into it too much but to touch for a moment on the disabilities that are for eighty seven let's say hypothetically just to throw out a hypothetical but here we are ten years from the date of the crime almost seven years from the plea bargain let's say hypothetically today the petitioner a graduate of san francisco state college was finishing his first year u s senate floor school seated in this courtroom looking forward to one day common sense but there was a great disability imposed on the petitioner well but of course that's not pleading guilty to two felonies as compared to one misdemeanor it's two felonies compared to pleading guilty to one felony and one misdemeanor corrections to say which you have a variation you have there is there is a felony conviction that is correct your honor and if i'm with a sandwich and watch the dish no disadvantage in that sense of reputation or ability to vote or ability to get jobs from therefore i'm going to not allow the four point reduction well that's that's in a legal context in the context of quote the real world let's say a c e o was looking at this young man's background get to the heart of this and then sit down your honor  that danny williams left the chain various and told the client and that's part of the e r the judge i'm recommending this because the judge is recommending it and you're going to get less time there's no doubt that  rodriguez this statement well i can think of about seven reasons real quickly why the reduction would almost invariably have been granted why it's reasonably likely that the petitioner would have gotten this number one the government agreed not to oppose this reduction in the plea agreement itself that c o r twenty number two the government agreed not to oppose the to find acceptance of responsibility point three one point one that's your twenty one number three the government would have been he would have been pleading only to one felony count that's your twenty number for the offense to contact was to be considered to one count only nine number five the government agreed movements counsel involved a little deliberation and the government was stipulating to that point which would have supported as the reduction ito our twenty one number six the probation department was agreement government objected to the withdrawal of objected strenuously your honor i wanted to make it clear at the time and i did so that i believe and the consequence this judge this is an interesting case in the sense that i see no suggestion here that the government did anything inappropriate the government negotiated a to two felonies as opposed to one felony one misdemeanor because of simple here that's why i call this a bird in the hand because apparently the bird two birds in the bush appeared more attractive to counsel i don't think the government did anything wrong in fact you objected to the attempt to withdraw the plea and they made absolutely clear that the commitments the government had made in the  longer binding if the plea was withdrawn and that's the focus least from our perspective of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is it doesn't constitute ineffective assistance time in other words how does that affect whether the it was ineffective assistance for iraq because mr sanders and his counsel fully appreciated the fine point placed on the understand what the nature of the informed consent might have been in the understanding an explanation after do with whether in effect of assistance was looking at people trying to identify all the things that are on a possible table as possible outcomes of making a decision in that case if you if you have among of the not only have things that are  everything that could happen in a minute let me ask it this way though because he hands on me there are two different he is there's one there's the lawyer mr williams and there's two there's mr sanders now the lawyer knows i'm assuming you know as your mean i was arguing with the judge and mr sanders understood what we were arguing about it was finally and even if that were not the case in other words he he didn't thoroughly understand which he mr sanders desired he was trying to maneuver yet he can for a better deal and he shouldn't be rewarded for for rolling the dice rolling the dice thinking and and now a third concern that what that statute was not on the books on that on the time at the time but your honor i have to be responsible for their conduct they have to be made possible for their decisions and you know my mother always told now thirteen twelve twelve years since he's been a judge i know what judge was interested in and he made it clear on the record he was concerned that it is all openly in the talking was rolling the dice three sure had a lot of help and throwing them hard he had the help of three different entities providing an influence on him at that moment one was of that is substantial and that's what ari fifteen seventeen and you know are seven ninety four then in addition to the eight of the probation department the probation department here convince the judge at that point but that was a real possibility on the record is replete that in the in chambers hartford's the judge made clear that he felt he could not go forward with the case those were the judge's own words because of this probability that decision of that at that point if you look at the record what's the practical effect of reversal how the practical effect of reversal could be substantial because mr sanders walks with these two thousand and convictions every day of his life that this will be given back to the government and back to the court system to decide what to do with it and i think that a just result will occur we understand your argument thank you for appearing here today the case just park it will be submitted to