standards saying there is a duty to investigate it not only covers the charges as were presented to the attorney but in this case particularly the other charges that would have been brought had mr jones had not agree limitations we know that the dean foods transactions all occurred in two thousand and two by the time the first information was filed in december of two thousand and seven all of those transactions were beyond the statute of limitations so the time defense at issue here comes onto the case in two thousand and eight all of those are off the table and less the government appearance this waiver at that point it becomes essential for defense counsel to say what's your proof on other charges and how much worse c be and that's essentially what we're asking we're talking about here is what does the government have that would say make me sighed and say to my client waive this defense on this charge to avoid risk a higher risk on another charge we do know that the stature to limit or sorry that the session remax them would have changed from five years to twenty years but we don't know if there was any investigation donna about the amount of los that will be associated with other charges which is the primary motivating factor in the guidelines which usually determines how much time a defendant is going to get in prison or at least a better estimate than the sta usa and perhaps another person as well it was some time ago and took them at their word that there were other two more serious charges that could be brought that's the failure at that point he does not admit that he should have done that and the reasons at that point he gives is that he saw this need to hurry he didn't want to remind the usa about the evidence against mr jansen and that he was avoiding of course this additional statutory charge those are hollow excuses when you look at the entire record the need to hurry should have borne out quicker resolution of this case certainly a quick quicker information filed sign that came on in april of two thousand and eight the information wasn't brown until september if there was a true hurry it would been filed in a more expeditious manner manner mr janssen didn't plead guilty until october of two thousand and eight and he didn't want to rock the boat with a say well from looking at this case from the beginning the boat was rocking you know he had already filed an information and then withdrew it because they could not reach a plea agreement and had indicated in some of their exhibits at least that the a usa was unwilling to further negotiate with mr janssen so the but the the boat was rocking and perhaps part of defense counsel's job was to come in and say ok let's kind of calm this down let's talk about what we can do from here there were no real changes made to the information it's identical from the first one to the second one and min plea in the record there's not enough for me to certainly make that point if i were able to say this is what you look at this this is what you would have been charged with usually  effect of assistance claims based on failure to investigate to get relief you've got to show what the investigation would show what a right right right should we have that here you know there's nothing in the record that shows that so why is that a sufficient basis for us to rule at this point well the problem is that ever what the testimony was was very vague as to what defense counsel dead and never provided that information and a large portion should investigated and didn't so there is a limitation in the record in that way however we do have the issue of mr janssen choosing to go to trial and if you look at the two counts he had a reasonable basis for going to trial if he did not have adequate and advice as to what he risked by not accepting the plea agreement and going to trial and whatever else was charged only focus defense counsel's duty is above and beyond what his attorney what his client tells him and what the government may have you can take the government at its word to a certain extent but as a defense attorney you must continue to most of that i did want well sorry you're you haven't ever contended that there isn't a factual basis for the charges that include guilty to no no that's not part of our argument and reza so that's take that off the table whether there was a duty on the part of mr steinback when he was brought into the case after your client burn through a bunch of other lawyers and he was brought in for the express purpose or so from the district judge to get the best deal possible by cooperating with the cup hermance because the prior attorneys and the defendant tend exasperated governments counsel by that point and so it was to just get the ship right and get the plea on the record because the prior plea hearing had been aborted and so we got those factual findings by the judge that he was brought in for that limited purpose not to do a full blown investigation you know the defendant w skillz just one of the best deal possible and there's no argument here that this wasn't a good deal well i think he's just making the ball claim that i wouldn't i wouldn't plead guilty i know you've done a full blown investigation but there's really no factual basis for that well i'm not making that that the concession that the only reason signed back was hired was let me back we have that as a factual  start it's not clearly erroneous on this record because the context this was a pre indictment plea negotiation that had been ongoing for quite some time as your client was china improve his negotiating yes so there really wasn't any dispute about what the factual basis for the chargers was and that he was guilty it was a question of you know getting the plea on the record to the charges that the government was willing to limit the case to well the problem is is that in order to agree to waive that statue of limitations or has to be a real investigation what the government here and because that's a significant waiver the government couldn't have charged that any of those offenses dealing with dean foods without that waiver so the duty to investigate yes he was hired to do a plea but the a b a standards do not limit defense counsel to putting blinders on i said well he's going to plead guilty and i don't have to do anything else because your job is to advise a defendant even one who wants to plead guilty if this really is the best deal and without steinbeck doing more investigation into what else mr janssen faced possibly he couldn't have known that this was the best deal the primary focus is this very big assertion that the government had a conspiracy or some other fraudulent scheme that's that's not alluded to by steinbeck at all he said i got the distinct impression that there were other acts even asking the government to say hey just show me something about those other acts of fraud if that had happened he would have testified about it and he did not so that's the basis for where our deficient performance comes in terms of what the other investigations would have been naturally because they weren't finished it was a standard here procedure so to speak within our office that if we're doing a complex investigation and we think we have a realistic we had a chance we will stop our investigation and see if the police pans out hopefully not for too long just to the nuff time to see it happen and then proceed and in this case there had been further work on it but the investigation all of the aspects of the investigation had been started working started on other aspects of the investigation besides dean foods it's the conversation as i think is reasonably interpreted from steinbeck's testimony is that the government said we would restart those negotiations or those investigations in any event the district court did correctly deny the motion to withdraw the the guilty plea as the bitch has pointed out mr steinback did do what he was engaged to do she was engaged to get a best plea deal is the district court found there was also one other important aspect of his engagement and with mr granite about the matter and spoke with mr grant's attorney about the matter and history steinbeck testified that mr in the court found that mister jansen had said to mr steinback well you know i'd like to see what i can do in terms of my plea deal to try and take the pressure off of or boyd anything happening to my longtime business partner gilbert graham and there was a specific provision in the original plea agreement in this case which required the mr granite to plead guilty or be sentenced within nine months of the plea or the government could back out of mr steinbeck would not stand before the court said mr steinback did an extensive investigation that is simply not the case as the district court pointed out he didn't that's not what he was hired for instead  he did review a significant number of records he also although he could not recall the nature of those records of the numbers of them that e mail it's in evidence that he testified about  s referenced a box of documents he met and spoke with government counsel multiple times he met and spoke with the defendant many times as i said he spoke with granite and grant all of those things are investigation is there more that could have been done certainly sign back strategy for handling the matter was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them at the time and mr jansen benefited from that doing he wanted to for blow he wanted to forego getting complete discovery from the government because he didn't want the government to go back to its discovery and risk changing its mind or finding something else that it wanted to in the that benefited mr jansen in the way that the that's proven that it benefited mr jansen is that the defendant after getting discovery has found nothing that mr steinback could have found that would have changed his  opinion about the plea he also wanted to halt the government investigation and that happened defendant pointed out in their reply be brief that some investigation continued but that was for sentencing purposes nothing changed in terms of the relevant conduct which had been agreed upon so there was no enhanced meant of the exposure of mr jansen by the ongoing investigation that related to specific sentencing matters still of us in a pretty unusual for the government to allow the social imitations to expire before you get a waiver if it is unusual your honor  and it's not part of the record why we did that and so i could answer that the court tells me but i don't feel like good without that i want to go with that  at five years instead of twenty so all of those circumstances at the time as mr steinback understood them not the way mr janssen may look at them in hindsight now were reasonable cited specifically recognize that a painting a better plea agreement is a basis for less investigation and that i contend is exactly what happened here the district court was also correct when it determined there was no objective evidence that the defendant would have pled guilty of the if mr steinback to obtain further disclosures from the government  the defendant has only pointed to in the court this record pointed out that he's only pointed to his own assertions in his written motion to accept withdraw as plead guilty and matt is simply not objective evidence and insufficient to make his case there was substantial objective evidence that the defendant did not intend to do that he attempted to hire steinback dorothy at least told steinback he wanted to hire him back into the case once time back to change his mind about his opinion  case contrary to almost all of the inadequate investigation cases and that is that there is simply nothing no prejudice that remains so as the court has any other question to all of that respectfully request that goes straight against the a b a criminal justice standards and it doesn't matter what the tip it doesn't matter what the defendant says but you are not limited if your client says i want to plead guilty you still have a duty to represent your client if not the government could simply say you know these are are facts the defense attorney says ok my guy wants to guilty let's we're done here that's not effective assistance of counsel it doesn't it does depend on the situation but in this case with a massive fraud with other potentially massive frauds alleged tax schemes years of documents it's not reasonable in this case unless the court has questions we ask that