plea i count at least so far right times that he told the court that he did not understand the right he was giving up he never said he understood them at all over and over he told the court that he didn't understand what he was waiving he so why did your client then respond that he understood when the district court periodical he asked him do you understand do you have any further questions your clients at no my client never said he understood and he did indicate after his attorney said that he understood that he still had questions but he still did not understand not at one point did he say that he understood the right he was giving up he's oh so this court should ignore his answers to the district court's questions no he never said that he understood the appellate rights he was giving out he never admitted that he understood those rights he always said he was confused his attorney said that he  understood them at one point the judge did just judge said to him a whole litany of things and then you may be you didn't hear what i said in my first question when the district court asked your client as to what he was as to the right to appeal and the district court went over it with him and he said is accurate rect do you have anything further your client said no then the district court went on  questioned he said multiple times that he didn't understand which rights he was giving up on appeal so the scope of the right that he was concerned about words everything that he would be giving up on appeal there were multiple questions and multiple times that i am at least five times that he said he didn't understand the scope of the appellate right that he was giving up so that that's what he was mostly concerned about of and he did raise these other questions the questions that ineffective a appeal waiver the court in in mr glover was asked specifically on page thirty one do you understand that in the transcript says that the defendant said yes that yes came at the end of the long list of questions or a long list meant that the court was telling him and the very last part is what he said yes to which doesn't mean that he understood the right that he was giving up the   yeah and in that the response of yes we don't know what the response was to what part of that compound question as opposed to saying that he was responding yes to every single part of the compound quest that's correct the mr glover had an eleventh grade education and if i when i'm reading the transcript i'm thinking that some of that was kind of confusing and lives graded through the court more than that but he had been through fact that mr glover understood that he did not give up right these two areas does not mean he understood the rights he was waving and reference in your reply brief at five to three to four to the right of appeal of his sentence and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which from the transcript that i read judge wilkins referenced were the two things that your client raised with the district court well i think you raise more than that i think he was raised the fact that he was kind and concerned about all of the appellate rights that he was waving and i think that he was confused generally and he never said that he wasn't the whole time he kept telling trying to tell the court that he didn't understand what was going on i think that transcript to read start this trial and you can get a sentence of life and present with no chance of parole which one point during their i'm sorry that was cruel was that that was one of the possibilities i don't think it was the necessary way to no what what what was he not able to appeal that he thought that he could appeal the he is able to appeal right now on the and counsel just trying to get him through that plea process without again without explaining what those process what those bright that he was giving up were so that in effect what do you think your burden is on appeal when you raise on just raising it but having some proof on it and which he did but based on his statements at the hearing there are no further questions well let me just follow up on that his counsel stated on the record be not under oath but still as an officer of the court that he had explained things to his client and that at least his attorney thought his client understood what he was giving up by entering this plea so with that record my question is what is your colorable claim and your response to me is my client kept saying he didn't understand yes because it's not the attorney told the district court he had reviewed this with his client and the attorney thought he understood what rights he was waiving correct so if we remain in this to the trial court what's going to happen the i don't believe it's the attorney's right to say that his client understood i think it's the defendant's right to say whether he understands what he's wearing but if the attorney tells the district court have reviewed this with my client and that at least in my opinion as his attorney i think my client understands on appeal do you have any burden to say anything that would indicate that that statement as an officer of the court is not credible and therefore you have raised the colorable claim not that that the attorney's statement is not color good morning your honor may it please the court erik hansford for the united states as to whether the defendant understood his sentence appealed rights which were the only rights that he expressed any confusion record is clear that on pages thirty to thirty one of the transcript the question is you understand you do have some appeal rights you didn't wave everything you understand that i talked about you can appeal the illegal sentence ineffective assistance of counsel you still have those rights the defendant replies right that's not an improper compound question that's explaining just the sentence appeal for and the defendant never suggested below that there was an improper compound question it also bears mentioning that the sentence appealed right the defendant has no conceivable interest in appealing his sentences here this was a rule eleven c one c plea he bargained for a fix term of twenty one years of imprisonment had the judge given any other sentence he would have had a right to withdraw from the plea and he received the twenty one year sentence so the defendant's interest in appealing that  court has left pleas in place and allowed the defendant to appeal his sentence so in other words if the defendant did not understand his sentence appeal waiver it would just be severed and he would be allowed to pursue an appeal of just a remedy that this court has employed the eleventh circuit first circuit and second circuit in cases we cited in the brief has applied that remedy and i think it's also a remedy that makes sense because defendant can as part of retain the right to appeal a sentence or waive that right so it is separate from whether or not a defendant is pleading guilty it's not like the right to confrontation or self incrimination or trial by jury that inherently in pleading guilty a defendant is waiving so it does make sense to sever that it seems that the defendant here is the central making an argument that when you combine the confusion over the appeal right with the fact that the defendant said that he was not satisfied with his counsel and had never been satisfied with his counsel when you combine that with the fact that the defendant said he felt coerced into taking th plea because his counsel would not motions on his behalf when you combine that with the fact that the district court said you will get a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole if you are convicted a trial instead of saying that that may happen that may occur that when you combine all of those together that this is this was an in voluntary plea what's your response to that so i think i'll go through those one by one first as to the defendant's claim that he's confused about his appeal rights more generally i don't think the record shows that it really is focused on the sentence appeal rights he's also giving up his right to appeal or appeal a conviction after trial as part of the plea the other appellate right that someone gives up as part of a plea the defendant expressed no confusion about that it really is focused on the sentence appealed rights here and judge hogan did go over that with the defendant at the end of the plea proceeding  defendant saying he was unsatisfied with counsel he can raise ineffectiveness claims he did retain that right under the plea but judge hogan said look you've had eleven i think judge hogan said nine but the record shows defendants had eleven different counsel during the course of his plea priests or his case and judge hogan said he'd appointed more counsel for defendant than any other defendant in his time on the bench so whether in the typical case a defendant unhappiness with counsel should give a court pas i think in this case judge hogan had good reason to except that defendant was in defense counsel to be setting up a motion to dismiss the indictment based on the truck evidence though he never said that specifically but when judge hogan asked counsel why he hadn't filed that motion counsel said he considered filing it and they filed every motion that they thought was otherwise or ethically appropriate so in other words counsel was saying this was a frivolous motion which indeed it was a frivolous motion under the supreme court have you ever seen  in i have not seen that motion and i think you are piled one when i was with public but i think here i have a case ending i think here what the defendant was trying to set up in terms of a motion to dismiss  dissatisfaction with his attorney is not rent does not render a plea legally involuntary pollard says the only things that can render a plea legally involuntary are forced threats misrepresentation or improper promises like that was the claim of coercion which is what judge hogan understood so judge hogan had already inquired into that just on the last part of judge wilkins question about judge hogan saying that the defendant was facing life without parole if he went to trial this is a case where the defendant had already gone to trial before joke and that is the sentence he received based on the guidelines calculations in the plea that's also what his guideline sentence have to give them that right that's right and that i don't think judge hogan said you will definitely get life without parole if you go to trial i think what he said and used the words definitely but he said you will  going i guess what i'm seeing is on page nine of the transcript the guilty plea gives you an opportunity to serve a shorter period of time certainly than life without parole if you're going to accept it i'm not going to force you to accept any guilty plea if you don't want to and i think the trial court actually has an obligation to make sure that the defendant understands the consequences both of accepting a guilty plea and of not accepting a guilty plea so if the defendant does not realize that he's facing a sentence a likely sentence of life without parole if convicted i think that could that would also be a problem here and so and so at one point the district cour but we're here today to talk about the guilty plea to resolve the charges against you so you don't go to trial and if you're convicted you would get the sentence of life without parole that's seventy eight seventy nine of the appendix i don't think that i mean i think in the full context judge hogan was not saying that he would definitely be getting a sentence of life without parole if he did not plead guilty but i do think that was going to be a likely consequence of the defendant pleading guilty in this case but i don't read judge hogan as saying you would get a sentence what's unclear about that well i think just after that that's where he says the guilty plea gives you an opportunity to serve a shorter period of time certainly than life without parole so i think it's clear in context he's saying th sentence you will definitely face but i do think that was the defendant's likely sentence that he was facing here is also the defendant had already said that he wanted to enter this plea he'd already indicated that he did want to do that and so the idea that this was somehow influencing his decision i don't think can be squared with the record here court were to conclude that the  i think if the court were to conclude that he had been coerced into pleading guilty based on a threat that he would be yes i think that would be a promise that if you go to trial you're getting life without i do think that would be probably the appropriate remedy here i do want to note the defendant does not make the argument that he felt coerced into pleading guilty by that statement by judge hogan and i do think judge hogan statement is not threat what brady recognizes is that a threat of exercising your right to go to trial a threat to give a higher sentence based on that can create coercion but that just admissible so in other words the record at a root free trial could well be the same record that he was convicted on the first time he was given a plea in a world where the government understood struck by the evidence was not admissible now under supreme court precedent it's plain that that truck but evidence would be admissible if there are no further questions we'd ask this court to offer thank you  i agree that mr glover is taking on a significant risk with this appeal but it's his risk to take on it's not mine to take on it's not the government take on it's not the government to say that he shouldn't take it on when he did but he also followed that up with threatening him with a life without and without parole and i will say that all of the government said we did not argue in the for in our brief on page twenty of our brief we did say the court seemed to threaten mr vindicated and get nothing well i mean that goes without saying i mean the judge doesn't have to do nothing in rule eleven or in our jurisprudence says that the judge has to reiterate that i mean that goes without saying i guess my point here is said is it appropriate to say to construe what the district court said here is was threatened when the district court was