by designation which he has on a number of occasions they st case for argument today is united states versus halt and you may proceed the morning your honor my wrists i'm going for a rally home i would like to reserve a couple of minutes for a bottle and i will not address the st issue that was raised which is the waiver of appeal unless there are questions from the court about it the primary issues in this case are the impact on my client's decision making in choosing to plead guilty based on the warning that he would have to represent himself raised issues again l o l i actually do have questions on on the  think there wasn't quite too much argument on why the waiver was not knowing involuntary as opposed to what happened earlier with the choice of that but the defense counsel  the issue of the way of appeal everybody agrees that the standard is whether the language of the waiver that my claim made encompasses the subject matter whether the pig remit is voluntary and i think that's  cleveland the st talks about waiver and there the express description of the subject matter that's being waived is the sentence the penalty and we believe that the language that the court was just reading from deals with breach at it does sound like it's an absolute well it is an expanded set of conditions that will lead to a bridge and that raises what we interpreted against the government and then what about on that and then you are you also making about a voluntary argument yes and that is really the separate the next section the one that i really like to talk about core may be a warning to my client and we disagree about the meaning of that warning we interpret that warning as saying if you come into court again and you say that you have abject mistrust in the rest patient that you're going to be given by counsel and the like new counsel if you do that again that you're going to represent yourself that's how we interpret that warning i think that that's a very fair interpretation of the morning and we want to emphasize here that the breakdown in the relationship between my client and his counsel at the time of that nd effort to replace concerns directly about that counsel what we do know is that at the sentencing there are two things that happened that i think are no worthy here what is your backwards just before we get to sentencing i'm sorry to interrupt you there but i want to talk about the warning so you're troubled by the warning shots more chance gave but what sort of warning would you agree could be given at that point disappoint judges reach all the time what's an allowable warning in your view well again i think that this was a thread the issue of mistrust of his counsel in his st with the st set of counsel my client and i think one of the lawyers acknowledged you know we don't get very many shootings police officers in this city so for him to ask for an district judge you feel might be gaming the system what he would say the rd time if my client's presentation about mistrust of his counsel was insufficient was he would say now i don't find credible i mean issue of whether you he's about to sign a new lawyer can't disregard say something like you better make this work or it's not going to i'm not going to look kindly on your next request well i'm the kind of mistrust that we're talking about here is mistrust of whether he had in train who could be able to represent him in a very emotionally charged and probably politically charged shooting and because of that what i would have said is that the kind of warning the court should be given if the court i doubted my client's concern in this area let's just say you know i don't know that i believe you here i do take you at your word when you say that you're concerned in the nd circumstance i want to remind the court what happened was my client you know this lawyer i'm aware of what happened ok and so because of that he said i don't trust him this lawyer whether you have acute mistrust of him or whether he or she is a knowledge to you i can't represent you in the case like this that this been i can't do it even if he said that to my client basically the suggestion is tough that's what we think this warning is conveying  so if a warning allows for the possibility of coming back to the court to say this new owner isn't working out either he's going to be a constitutionally defective lawyer that kind of warning in your mind is ok he's not again we don't the issue is whether there's a complete breakdown and there can be breakdowns there are cases about what the kind of me and i think the warning should emphasize the reasons the court is sort of making this premature judgment that's the other aspect of the warning here it's sort of so you know that i have one that is you know you're crafting a very and implicit in him as statement it seems to me is what you said ok we've done was we've done it twice he's basically saying we can't he doing it  and in doing that is saying you know you are the one that's creating this situation so i don't know if there is a constitutional difference between what happened here and what you're saying here it happened i appreciate your comments on that and well i think that because it was so definite it doesn't matter who we get it doesn't matter  lawyer they tell you about his or her ability to represent you enable this we're not going to do this again it was pretty definite and i think that that would cross the line and make this a constitutionally burdening district courts making hollow aware that he wasn't going to let hall run through counsel was appropriate it was right for him to know that and the idea that what the district court said reflects that he would have gone forward without a hearing plea there is no evidence of a conflict with with edmunds his counsel when he pleaded guilty the statements he pointed to in the right heard from the sentencing hearing don't go to the relationship to counsel pages eighty four through a five he says i could have withdrawn it for no reason whatsoever and he also didn't seek to withdraw either between the stress exceptions and sentencing or after sentencing and before his appeal and for all of these reasons i think the only reasonable inference based on his record is that the admo ment was appropriate and had no effect on his decision to plead guilty but what about the argument that the plea agreement was ambiguous about whether or not this claim is covered i think that the best reading is is the one  this issue matters a lot it matters for the bottom line disposition of the case if you accept the government's position whether you just missed the appeal for laughter stiction or a firm conviction i also think it matters a little bit with respect to the rule eleven argument because it helps readings of what consequences follow from appealing in two separate paragraphs that creates an ambiguity the i wanted to go to the issue of whether this each time for his mistrust of his soul's ability to represent him in a case that he regarded as it is both emotionally and and thinking in terms of  shootings of police officers because you mentioned by police officer he mentioned one that happened in seattle in his nd discussion with the court and those all bore on a claim of self defense which again looking at the language of words warning what he was told was don't come in and say that that is an issue for you again with your counsel i have decided that for whatever reason i don't want to hear it again and then you're going to represent yourself and the court i disagree certainly that my client's behavior or anything he said suggests that he had engaged in conduct like the conduct in the cases that the government me it was one of those kinds of conflicts it was a conflict that it wasn't conflict it was trust and that can include that can cause a breakdown of a relationship between counsel and cli just as well as arguments not just respect and that was what my client with trying to raise and what the court said i don't don't think it's working to be interpreted any other way thank you i think we have your point in mind that cases argued united states versus holland submitted think council for your argument