i agree with you know i see here that he's makes of erratic statements i would say but it is it your contention then that any defendant who makes a radix statements in court even though it's like college as the interpreter indicating that he too was confused and don't clue exactly what was going on the court went over and over getting the defendant the opportunity to talk to his client after which it was decided that you go to trial you enter the plea and the defendant where you do have to judge in court his demeanor the demeanor of the defendant in court was such that i think the and you would hope that you will find that the court erred in going forward and accepting his competency either to enters a plea or to go to trial that there should have been hearing and i would also your honor kindly point out that in the ability to consult with counsel fashion understanding of the courtroom proceedings and rational understanding of the courtroom proceedings so furthermore this technology is believe that delta v has had an acceptable understanding and appreciation of the charge against him which provide screening for feigning competency was not scored in this particular instance and i don't know exactly how to argue it except to say that perhaps there should have been an independent evaluation i think what mr leno was assuming and i can only speculate first of all it was a preliminary if the defense counsel asked bridget to be determine whether we was competent because he was having difficulty with the court didn't have what you would call full blown competency hearing the c when the information had not been turned over to the government at the point of the hearing and so what the court sa indicated that at the time but the bottom line conclusion and opinion missed by early for your information is that the expert out there feels that the defendant is competent to stand trial and apparently was competent at the time of the alleged con i think we should discuss how the case should proceed from here so i think that in a fact not using the words finding what the court is in effect saying here ok that's that's all i want to you have if you look at the record is you have a defendant who has some what i consider very legitimate concerns those legitimate concerns are is why is i've been through this once before in effect and this is i'm talking about this and i've been through this once before and i come back and now the penalty is so much all right i can't wait for my first time and now you want to send me for a long time and you're treating me in effect like a terrorist that i believe is what he's in effect  that you're treating me as if i'm really this terrible person secondly and this is something that's fundamental has been a fundamental argument that we get a lot of times during sentencing why are you counting those prior convictions against me and i know that i was convicted of this one but i'm telling you just i'm not guilty and what he's doing is having the conversation if you look at the record what appears is he's having a conversation with his counsel his counsel trying to explain to him that there are two sentences that's how we refer to supervised release of the second sentence in the first sentence being actually what's going on maybe the defendant doesn't understand that totally and completely but there was a conversation the hearing before the act now and unfortunately not smell lingering here i mean he's a person has probably limited understanding he has language issues and and so i said psychological components any does some of the comments do seem to be somewhere around tick and so that's you know how much i counted against me and how i should be treated on this case and maybe you're not seeing me enough you're not listening to what i'm telling you and i want you to do certain things those are indications that the feminists confident and those would not raise a red flag to a judge issue gets up and says well i made bail for that but even then based upon my experience putting that in context being in court in hundreds of changes of pleas over the twenty five years i  office a lot of times defendants wait for an opportunity to say something because they feel it's relevant one of the issues that was brought up in the play it may mean one of the issues that ms byerly expressed during the her explanation of what they sent me even though i post bail they sent me to ok mason then they deported me i consider that an attempt at an explanation not necessarily something that's unusual and that would be again be a red light for the judge although the judge react to it by saying well i don't understand what let's go why are asking that but when it came down and i think some of the critical things that you look at one of the things that the judge asked with anybody made any promises to you and what was his response at that point in time after the court of earlier hearing had discussed the problem with having to countenance that and his prior convictions his response was the fact that my attorney promised that he would do things that give me the best sense he could so obviously at that point in time he understood that there were sentencing issues he understood from a long time prior he understood it appeared what the elements were for the purpose of conviction because he was telling the court he wasn't there for me to fight i'm from mexico i'm not supposed to be here so he clearly understands the aunt i don't know if the court has any further questions