we're complaining about as the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to such to counsel the motion for new counts the additional problem in our view is that the district court didn't make the determination about the necessary elements or the and sixty eight conviction to be valid because the district court omitted any finding about the mens rea a proceed in the order i mentioned and to begin mr campos rivera made a of a right to substitute counsel because if there isn't one of those there's a right to counsel and he had two different attorneys and the district judge said  you can't have a rd so you have to choose whether to stick with your current attorney or proceed pro se and so isn't it better to think about this case as a challenge to the judge's approval of his decision your client decision to proceed cross a your honor fred a cowboy user excuse me for the claims are very difficult to win and we think that we've framed in the better fashion to proceed on the abuse of discretion claim so i think that we could prevail perhaps under florida but we thought more solid about prevailing chance of prevailing on the din out substitution because if a district court abuse its discretion and we think that we show we can show it has been my client would be entitled to go back with new counsel and so that is the reason why we framed the issue as we have the issue as we see it is very definitely an abuse of discretion dispute the adequacy of the inquiry by the district court and with their we part company with the government we've noted that both contest is a case where there was much more inquiry made about the basis for the request for a new counsel my client having gone through a parade of attorneys he had wanted to meet prior to the one that he wanted to then discharge and that attorney wasn't doing anything for him they got was getting them to try i quite want to try as attorney stated on the record he believed anything he did to proceed to a trial with more the cleat offer that the government was making my client didn't want that so there's been a breakdown in the representation and the district court did little to dress th district court seemed to instead think of this in terms of being a foolish decision and therefore spent little time addressing what was the necessary inquiry whether the didn't break down in the communications between the lawyer and the client resulted in adequate representation and i did there was no representation here during the pretrial proceedings my client's lawyer never tested the adequacy of the government's case and during trial course my client was forced go back tonight special question to clarify the you know the actual locus of the encourage here you're not challenging the voluntariness of his decision to fire his attorney and proceed pro  se and the district court doesn't have an obligation to appoint a rd lawyer you're are the district court as an obligation to make an adequate inquiry that so what was missing in the record in your view there was really broad acceptance it seems that the district court was the same view is aligned his thinking with trial counsel that this was a hopeless case and therefore the best option would be to accept a plea offer of my client or mccoy and absolutely every right to go to trial despite any misgivings about the said that he didn't regard the filings as for us at st and then he seemed to track back on that but he said more broadly that he didn't think that it was wise to do anything they could upset the glee off and that is not respecting my client government's effort to reach into the likes of my as we think fail because in my hands there was a p s our jury instructions there was an opportunity st to look at what the relevant considerations were for a valid conviction through the jury instructions that didn't happen here and then there was also a p s are that you could look to which we we took issue with of course in the my estimate test cases but the evidence in that regard is lacking here so we don't think the government can fairly rely on those cases working of us or forfeiture is a valid argument here because my client didn't have the opportunity to oppose or object to it germination is no responsibility of course furn and admits the following facts of those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt what we do with those are problematic in our view because if he had good representation he wouldn't stipulate all that was necessary for a conviction he would just plant but s y the stipulation was sufficient in and of itself i don't think that we would have needed in my hands perhaps to look to what the p s are also said about intent in particular this depletion doesn't say about intent judge  so that would be our position on that thank you right thank you very much mr collection yes good morning please the court good afternoon taking a court appearance september th in which counsel stand by counsel and the government discussed well you know the police still available only just your guy want to take the plea was never court and i willing to fulfill that responsibility in court in other words there's every indication to think that mr little would have gone to trial bond was willing to go to trial there was there were complaints from the defendant that he's trying to force me to plead guilty co complaint that he's not meeting with me not communicating with me not giving even my discovery there are any other complaints other than he won't file these motion that review is kind of impossible because the defendant repoint fired his lawyer chose to go there's no complaints about the district courts allowing him to go person and of course there's no indication there's no evidence there's really no argument that the result would have been different had had mr loeb remained in the case violation it has to be a knowing violation another was did you know it's against the law or just know you're entering the country you just have to know that you're reentering the united states i don't believe there's a  willfulness requirement for this for this charge so the defense would have had to be that the defendant unknowingly entered the united states he was kidnapped or it wandered over the border or he was under the influence and you know he was unconscious it was never there were any claim of that there is no evidence to suggest that all the evidence there was introduced at trial showed th so as for the right to trial the record doesn't show the trial did anything to test the government's case so i don't think the government can say that there is no proof here rather the government is supposed to point to the proof that shows of the council did test the government's effort excuse me case and made some efforts that didn't happen and should be able to put the burden now as for what the results have been different well surely it was because my client was entitled to make a bad decision decision go to trial and play for the fumble and of course the government because it didn't show any man's read it and asked the district court to make a determination in the points nothing in the record that shows the district court did so without evidence of the necessary element there cannot be a valid conviction there's the fumble there's the difference there's the pageant's and the lack of finding makes the conviction in firm even if you were to say he doesn't have a valid request for substitution of counsel to affirm it can be x that lacks the necessary element i support a defective conviction and to let it go by on notice the government wasn't in any hurry and it could have alerted the judge you just didn't do it and so the district court erred i had no opportunity for rule twenty nine he was summarily sentence