he was told by his counsel had a duty to fully cooperate with his identification of the witnesses that were involved in a broader conspiracy the phone numbers here given to the federal officers allowing contact with colombian representatives the entire evidence of the count prior counterfeiting charges which contrast to unsigned a few agreement and all came into evidence during the subsequent drug shark gone down to san andreas island in colombia and there had made contact with this fellow hugo who we know was phony and tony had offered to sell him drugs and counterfeit money and that he had in fact picked up scuba gear and brought it back all that he told the u s government and reliance on the immunity that reportedly conveyed to him under the plea agreement immunity is then that language i'm just i'm unity from filing any subsequent star just correct no more charge no more charges no testimonial immunity i agree with that language so the answer is yes we do have an argument about testimony on the unity yes we do but i don't find that specifically reciting the language and i was trying to respond honestly and candidly to the judge's point about  you know something he could you but something had to do the preferred remedy for a breach of the agreement and specific performance in this case with mr stand out who was twenty years old and had a ninth grade education it's time he signed this clear agreement and the position he would have been had the government done what it promised to do i don't think this language is ambiguous if they had wanted to insulate them from any further counterfeiting charges your honor counterfeiting doesn't appear in here either they could have charity that in there they didn't they told him we w refrain from filing any additional charges what does that mean any additional charges all charges all conceivable charges that's correct involving or rising from yes and that's really that's the heart of the fight in this case let's talk about scuba gear they never found any residuals but they based it on his testimony that he had done at which he told them once he was caught with the counterfeit money doing clever things like paying one hundred bucks for a cab and going to blocks and getting ninety and change that exactly with all the brilliance of his ninth grade education he was trying to launder the money he got caught and then he told them about his honeymoon two months before and they asked him about that as the attorney promised that he would be insulated if he provided for information he did provide for information and then they turned around and charged him for exactly that same activity i agree with you as a direct result of the testimony he provided to them under the pretty green and they then charged him with the drug conspiracy count on the other two counts so the language does not say whether documents or that involved events after person x and they only gave us documents only limited of that but didn't give us documents that included other information we wouldn't accept that that would be a fair reading of that request they have to give us everything  touches on it we had a bank robbery where a person was killed a felony murder and we signed a plea agreement saying that there will be no further charges brought involving the bankruptcy and then they brought a murder charge for the felony murder of course that would be covered similarly here we have it nearly all people believe in a single conspiracy my client had a very minor wall that just report concluded his role as a minor my client was not part of the group that initially set it up but it was a conspiracy involving trying to get a source for counterfeit money and drugs inform the jaish and chill with had this master plan my client had just gotten married he went down there stupidly on his honeymoon he probably brought drugs back in scuba gear and no one knows for sure he later on did question the pain bringing counterfeit money this was part of one sort of operation now they agreed that they would not file any additional charges against  or rising from his counterfeiting activities that drug stuff doesn't arise from legally and it doesn't involve the counterfeiting activities the government has that at least ten times they're part of the same factual  because the government has all the power here and because there is something of a stain on our government if they say one thing and do another these beautiful contracts are construed and the defendant t issue in my view the district court's action in dismissing one count and convicting on a lesser included count and then the three other issues in order of importan didn't fully have at the time of the plea agreement this is very similar certainly the charges are completely different but this is very similar circumstances and this case we're looking at a plea agreement that this is playing on its face and it's not ambiguous when all the words are read together for instance in paragraph two of the plea agreement the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the charges  to cooperate fully and provide information concerning the charges in the station finally the most important language significant language that brings us here today is going paragraph eight the united states agree refrain from filing any additional charges as noted involving arising from his involvement in obtaining or passing counterfeit currency now the question has been raised as to whether or not the defendant's actions or the defendant's involvement in the drug conspiracy charges drug charges arises from the counterfeiting conspiracy first i'd like to originally and early into a conspiracy that involved both drugs and counterfeit now jason excuse me jeremy stand out became involved in that drug s arrested in las vegas passing counterfeit currency at the time he indicated that he had he had gone down to colombia to obtain the counterfeit currency and he had met with as far as obtaining more drugs or not however that that was a further act that that would be related to mr brown as munoz in that part of the drug forms that stated first whether or not to defend it was guilty or not guilty and secondarily according to prend i whether or not the defendant has that or whether or not the coun included more than five kilograms or more than five hundred grams each count included that one however counts two and three were charged at last now that count and the judge found that based on the evidence presented the government had not met its burden for that amount however the government had met its burden according to the eight fifty one and handsome and notifying the court and the defendant prior drug conviction now if he is convicted on count the conspiracy count that puts in mandatory minimum  i'm sorry there was not any formal or informal immunity given in this case and interestingly enough the the defendant was called before the grand jury on january twel questions concerning any drug offenses which the united states has learned in the tambour between the time which would learn more about it if you will your honor between the time of the plea and being fall before the grand jury he was told that he was investigation and not to discuss the drug charges even being evasive given that circumstance even notwithstanding that circumstances mean are that the united states agreed prior to the trial it would not use any statement from the grand jury so there was no formal immunity and immunity that the defendant to a draft of a plea agreement in which language was changed concerning drug counts and i believe that that was also brought out in the defendant's reply brief included within that that he defende that's true it's not the case they weren't aware of drugs when they did the plea agreement concerning counterfeit indeed the plea agreement itself has a sentence stating that mr standout advised the know that now there was an initial draft of the plea agreement which the government asked my clients who agreed that he had obtained counterfeit currency and drugs from tony and he had jacked it to the characterization of obtaining drugs because he had told them i brought that latin pounds a whole from the school year the jury i take it started that was a bit of a geometrical problem and i didn't believe that has the money but with respect to the plea agreement we have the united states government coming in and it's not oral and it's probably to a global can it's language but that's exactly how my client looked at it is that i can talk about the drugs because they're agreeing not to file any additional charges now to say that month later in front of the grand jury which they asked and it has to fight against other defendants they told him now you're on the hook at that point he doesn't know what to do his lawyers told him you're free and clear of this provision as they've already asked him about the drugs they've already honor they are part and parcel of what was going on here all of the parties here were involved in both the counterfeit currency and they were also involved in cocaine he uses the word involved that's their lawyer that's the u s government saying this overarching conspiracy there was something i'm not remember if it was a courtroom identification yes that's correct you're remembering correctly there was something to that effect but just about everything else from the whole are overarching conspiracy k man and including all the stuff