core of what his claim the heart is that he had all of these words from the plea substantial sums of money for and not one of them providing him with the key evidence in this especially if we disagree i still don't understand the art if we disagree and that if there was sufficient nexus i mean the evidence is what the evidence is i don't see how him having that pointed to anything that would have caused him to say no so in the court agrees with the government i'm prejudiced by not having seen this morning well that he had from his read of the conspiracy that he was engaged and and that is and there is significant because well he may have understood that there were some legal process he didn't understand and that from conversations with his work he didn't understand the factual basis who were any of those claims because you were never presenting them with the and whom a district court judge deciding that those were insufficient taxes and that case was ratified by the six circuit and row it's in some dispute because they have agreed them and i didn't provide them well that wasn't the st time that he had to go to the cooler and explain to the court that he wasn't clear because of some problem getting ready for  been helped in any way by seeing this information by the way he would have a case by i believe that i have a case because this is the those situations as applied to plea bargaining process bargaining process is produce sujan itself not the result that is right he needed to be have the information and the assistance of counsel to make the decision he couldn't make the decision without having discovery and is in a situation where he just didn't have access to the discovery he didn't understand the discovery and that is something that is who are needed to do and simply did what he  and what he didn't say there's no evidence in the record that he didn't see the line she's in fact part of the problem is mr gonzales arise changes what he saw from moment to moment depending on who question video it turns out that the photos were and why and where he was being held but they were being held for processing they clamored been turned over that pursuant to the local rules of the district court and then there's more questions about one of those he saw so he saw the photo but when he didn't actually hear with the tapes and he didn't see the poll camera at least that's when the said what's clear is that most of that was and why and what we don't know is whether he saw that he didn't  clearly didn't have the search warrant affidavit that was turned over to him early so hard the problem is that he changes what is he saw and what he didn't see so that's that's the st issue is i do think that the government cracker and all of this over was a lot of the problems were exacerbated by the fact that he didn't keep changing lawyers and while i agree that the mr fact who was a racially appointed but that was on the complaint and then he was replaced by retained counsel and he was replaced by another retained counsel maybe all of them can't be assigned to mr gonzales arise as him getting rid of lawyers but the fact is he did have most of this material he didn't know what he was getting into and on january th and this is that the at that point on january th there's no indication that the concern is anything other than defendant wanted one to three kilos vamps would be assigned to him his responsibility that would give you a bas was a loaded handgun so there were other things that the government could have charged him with and he should just be aware of those factors it's only four days later at the actual clean air raid credit the st time the defendant says oh and by the way my ticket said john parish area that he told me that i was only responsible for eight hundred and fifty grams not even one kilo but that's not what he said on january of sort of moving targets here as to what was really going on i would also add that as we said in our brief the eighty seven in the course are because of all set to expire say that there's no constitutional right for the defendant personally to view all the discovery biggest fan in this case knew what the discovery was because he'd seen all the documentation that the government had turned over and i would add this is not a case where there's phone calls that don't involve him this was intercepts of him on his cell phone mostly in his apartment and so the claim that he didn't somehow didn't have any knowledge of it with which to actually decide to plead guilty that is in the sorry the defendant also claims that somehow this would have changed his decision again there's no way this would have changed the decision argument here was about how much and the government said it was three dollars or four  upon the prejudice kron reasonable probability that by clear counsel's errors he would not have pleaded guilty but were gone to trial i do not think there can possibly be such a showing given the evidence against him and the potential for a much higher sentence the defendant was completely involved in his defense and as you can see from reading the transcripts not on degenerate staff because he does not speak them but he does send the court matters he does h mean what what issue on the record is that at the point that the plea was entered mr gonzales was requested to make a brief part decision mr gleason was his lawyer after that when the court denies it the next day so i think that's november th is the point tonight as the motion withdraw the clay the guilty plea and on november th the following day the defendant files a motion to get rid of his again if you are if you are picking apart performance as one little piece at a time that would make almost all of us ineffective at some point for failing to do one time thing yes he did not and he was about more an a y violation of the court's order than anything else as i said there was a moving target as to when actually see and where he actually already passed there is no doubt that the lawyer should have taken that material to the defendant out riot that weekend that was where he was ordered to do he violated the court order by doing it but ultimately eventually going to the prejudice problem and that's where we have the problem that he didn't have most of that information and  we're going to trial and then they evidence is clear from the record now even just if you look at the affidavit for the search warrant there's climate of evidence as to him dealing drugs out of that apartment and how much it was even before the search was executed to focus on that the date when the hearing where he was appointed stand by counsel i mean there's really nothing in the record where he affirmatively agrees after being advanced of all of the we don't obviously know the tone of voice of that and he does say fine that he will go forward with this internal public defenders as his standby counsel and he will present himself also i don't know that after a hearing the court sad that this had been going on for a while but at this stage they were asked right before sentencing there were only two issues left but that the defendant and his lawyer to deal with now as the proper calculation of the guidelines and the  sat and in fact if you look at the plea agreement in the government supplemental context you'll see that the government has crossed out what had been in there before at the last minute they had changed and the government had come down to his numbers of one to three kil for we would be remanded for sentencing i think that would be the only remedy at this point everything else would stay in place because it would just be the sentencing but i just don't see that his way or if you look at this court explanation of what problems he faced he didn't tell him among other things that there were a lot of ghouls they were very difficult it was very complicated one if he represented himself here for your client a number of things like that so i the discovery as required by the court in couldn't produce any documentation that he had prior provided any discovery to the client i think that those things are key in that the prejudice here is to his decision not to the result but to his decision which required him to make a decision about what was better for him on a down and f the court the ability and the authority to regulate and the court didn't the corps became skeptical of mr gonzales artist although it is not clear on the record of why he became a very different representation of what was provided to your client and now what they've provided to through counsel and with counsel sent to mr gonzales areas might be two different things that we call on things record and find it based on disclosures of the court that a lot of stuff was provided to him i'm still having difficulty with the prejudice he's still i want to say that on march t reasonable to assume that he had the discovery after the twenty seven but not before i was making a plea and without that he had no real basis on which to understand how strong the evidence was in it was clear in the conversation