contradicted by e mails that mr humanise had submitted to the court in which mr human as unequivocally directed defense counsel not to delay his trial date the district court did not address those e mails and denying mr human court's failure to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea and their impact on mr humanists the court did not address the may th conference where the august trial date was set at mr humanizes request and over defense counsel's objections because of his concerns about his ability to be prepared by the august trial date the court didn't address the fact that following that conference defense counsel was away on vacation for nearly the entire month before had been offered just shortly before trying that happens all the time people turn down plea agreements and then they get right up to the precipice of trial and then they say wow i don't want to go to trial and there's no more offer and you plead as they used to say why do you think that that's unusual it's unusual in the context of all the surrounding facts here in many cases defendants consistently seek delay of their trial date through the course of the proceedings here from the very st moment mr humanize was in court he sought his speedy trial he under oath that it was voluntary and that he was satisfied with counsel yes your honor roll levante exists for the circumstances in which even those statements were made under oath during a plea allocution the surrounding circumstances demonstrate  voluntarily entered or at least i should not accepted this please you should judge should spend the time wow you know this is just the timing is such that i'm not going to accept it we're going to try that's what he should accept the challenge here your honor is to the judge's denial of the motion to withdraw his guilt i understand that but you're saying that it was clear from the context of the guilty plea at the time of the guilty plea that this was not that this was not voluntary well our argument your honor is that if you looked at all the circumstances leading up to that plea it would be clear that it was involuntary and at the very least at the time that mr hume is moved to withdraw his plea and the court was presented with all the surrounding circumstances it was error for the court to deny that motion a finding either that the plea was involuntary or that at least there are significant questions as to the voluntariness of the plea which is the circuit standard and the and they're finding that there is a fair and just reason to be significant questions as to its voluntariness to allow withdrawal and that's to standard we maintain is met here as well with respect to the iranians factual finding of the judge's conclusion discrediting mr human defense counsel said he'd be prepared defense counsel affirms that yes mr humanist says ok but you need to look at that entire conference in context the st entire half of that conference was spent debating when the trial date should be and defense counsel repeatedly stated that he wanted a later trial date even if it was over his client's objection and he expressed concerns about his ability to be prepared he said if we if mr bemis months trial in august i'll be ready in september so because of those representations in the st half of the con of the conference mr humanise had valid concerns about defense counsel's ability to be prepared in time of the nd seconds so right yes he was assigned a nd counsel a week before trial and two days before his guilty plea and so he had the benefit confirmed to mr humanizes fears that defense counsel was not prepared at that point it was a week before trial and defense counsel had previously been asking to have the trial date adjourned had not worked on his case since he had returned from his vacation at least as of the july  conference and so in that moment the request for conference for additional counsel just confirmed mr humanizes concerns the defense counsel was not going to be prepared to offer effective assistance at trial he never said that  guilty plea itself he did not win as his position was from a position here today is that from everything that had led up to that moment including the fact that he'd been requesting the trial date he finally had it set the court said the trial date sticks and he believed right on the eve of trial defense counsel was not prepared that he felt in that moment that there was no choice but to enter the guilty plea it was necessary for him to say under oath subject to penalties of perjury that he was satisfied with his lawyers performance in that moment he felt like he was trapped between going to trial without an attorney who was prepared to represent him and entering the plea and so yes in that moment he chose to enter the plea you're saying he committed perjury not those statements here's the question mr manners are you satisfied with mr gregory and mr my dil as your counsel the defendant yes you are and our position is that those statements were not voluntarily made looking at the surrounding circumstances that led up to that moment involuntary perjury good morning your honors my name is craig here and i represent the united states in this matter may please the court judge here is not commit any abuse of destruct discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea defendant is identified no mistake of law nor any clearly erroneous application of facts in this case the court conducted a searching review of the record as you identified in his  satisfied with counsel and also the litany of questions related to his voluntary ness and preparedness to plead guilty he specifically considered this claim raised today about  counsel and the defendant's concern that counsel is not going to parrot a trial and rejected it based on the record in place and this is consistent i think only not only with the record consistent with the circuits case law in several other cases cited in our brief the circuit and district court have all concluded that claims of pressure or the feeling of that they would be unprepared defense counsel be unprepared for trial was before hand tells the defendant that you should just say yes to every question there's no suggestion that here no your honor is not the record here is quite to the contrary i think what's important about this record is this is a record where the defendant showed a demonstrated ability to speak up when a sorry this was a intelligent individual who spoke english well and who beginning as early as i believe uses st or nd appearance before judge jury demonstrate ability to request new counsel when attorney and saying i believe he said no no no i've got something to say here as as judge jury put it the defendant was no shrinking violet he further demonstrate his ability to speak in may two thousand rd when he filed his letter and the the the court was responsive to that request and file had a status three days later before magistrate judge paul ruff ski where his concerns would appear to have been addressed at that appearance the defendant  received an earlier trial date than the one that judge jury had scheduled and had agreed to keep the counsel that he had although and i think this is important judge made it very clear to the defendant and believe he said on several occasions during that status that he had the opportunity to still go before judge jury and ask for a new counsel if he still wanted it with the admonition and caution that changing counsel yet again could create the tension of an attorney requesting a delay which was inconsistent with his desires and what happened after that is that over the course of the next two months and three status conferences the defendant said not a word again to judge for a potential rule thirty five dollars reduction of sentance and so i think based on the totality of the record here the record shows that the defendant's plea was indeed voluntary when you couple that with the other aspects of the standard for nature of this trial witnesses from ecuador who might have been available as was cooperation witness who had left the country and was no longer available to the government so for all those reasons and more the government the ruhleben de exists for a reason here that allows police to be withdrawn when there's a fair and just reason to do so despite the plea elocution and despite the witnesses statements under oath it's been done before here by this court in johnson and it's what we're asking this court to do here again today based on this record before it mr humanizes case to respond to a few of the government's points the government did not address st and foremost here in its briefing the fact that judge perry made a iranian's factual finding and that that ok at the very end of the may th conference but what happens from there is really significant your honor the next conference on june th the defense counsel represents the user see if the government's discovery that he's reviewing a plea agreement and three days later he goes away on vacation he's gone for no we're not here our argument is the impact of these events on mr humus so this is what he's seeing his attorney saying and doing in the weeks before his trial and at that point defense counsel even suggested let's not cement ourselves in the trial date but the court said the trial date sticks when they're back a week later just now about a week before trial this time defense counsel is there asking for somebody else to help them try the case that's now a week away and these attention to   that's a very substantial it's a very important factor in this decision i mean absent your ability to show that the plea really should not have been accepted by the trial as a volunt findings on that point us the government's claims of prejudice with respect to the amount of time for mr humanist withdraw his plea that's explained by the record it's explained that there had been these negotiations with defense counsel and that after that broke down mr humanist requested new counsel specifically to address these issues because of a breakdown in their relationship and then replacement counsel had to be appointed in order to actually get caught up on the record and make the motion with respect to the government's claims of prejudice yes they have claimed that one of their witnesses may be unavailable and that it may be burdensome to bring others back for trial but that being said there is a overwhelming interest in making sure the guilty pleas are knowingly and vali voluntarily entered here mr humus is fifty four years of heart can just ten months later saying you know what i didn't mean to plead guilty i'd like a trial well the difference here your honor and the government does point out there's a number of cases that have dealt with scenarios where that happens where a defendant makes a bald statement as this court or st them but the point is that here when the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was made there are those are impulse statements mr humanizes he claims usually contradict his treatments under oath on the record but they are supported by everything that led up to the plea his claims that of what happened at the may th conference of their impact on him about his attorney's ability to be prepared for trial all that is reflected in the events that led up to the plea these are not bold statements they're supported by what happened here is supported by the fact that i but there is a right to a speedy trial yes and he was trying to pursue that right over the only objection so that were coming from his own attorney so it was that struggle that went on for months and led to the breakdown in the relationship and then ultimately when he had his trial date and the trial date was set and he ran up against his own attorney yet again this time i'm prepared to try it but if you don't was apparent at the time of the guilty plea right if the court had considered perhaps all the surrounding circumstances leading up to the perhaps the court could have made this recognition but our point is at least at the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas to stage where was all presented to the court of what had occurred and the impact on the defendant that is where the error lies and that's why it was an abuse of discretion rule eleven permits withdrawal for a fair and just reason and we maintain that the record shows there was one here but you pointed to the rule just as my colleague craig stewart had been before leaving arnold and porter and we've continued this representation since