that largely a fact question assuming there is some evidence you know to support the argument we have here two reasons he might have did not have rejected the plea after at st accepting one is this advice from the counsel but the other is this thing about the directors and that is what he brought up when they were actually rear waiting on the plane if he had been sent that the plea would have gone through and that the dress defense is a legitimate defense it may not be the best in strategically mainly not the wisest thing to rely on but there's no ineffective this is a council on the directive dance it's on this thing about was it marijuana or was it something and so is it that very fact intensive to decide what you know whether we really believe mr gonzales who gave inconsistent testimony continually said he forgot stuff he clearly should remember is disagrees with his own he's actually in that the court is actually hearing evidence and assessing and much of what consult us says is different from what cisneros society and much of what gonzales says is very unbelievable because he's saying he forgot things that involve his own criminal trial not that long ago so if if he's that we're relying on him to say what would he have done i would reasonably have taken the ok you don't have to take his word for it and if he's making a bunch of statements that call his credibility into question they call back credibility to question to you don't they your honor to marshal came to the door before trial mr snares didn't show up on time and told the court that he wanted to speak to his lawyer about pleading guilty so it's not like mr says mr gonzales is just making this up it he said i was i mean to use a term to rest but i was under duress and that's what eroded in and blew this out of the water because a judge isn't going to accept a plea when he feels that the person didn't actually commit the crime but it was it was during that guilty plea when the judge gave him i believe it was fifty three minutes to go off and talk together where he was mr vies on the eminence and decided to go to time during trial that he didn't know the type of quality drugs that i want to talk about credibility most of what the government of eyes on for a lack of credibility is extraneous to the main issue for example it talks about the government talks about conflicts of case preparation two years ago about what exactly happened the government talks about mr gonzales not remembering things about what happened during his guilty plea was totally understandable because there were a number gonzales didn't understand what was going on i'm guilty plea here you have a clue and the judge even commented that you keep talking to your lawyer and your answers are too slow let me give you a break so it was clear and for example so to say he lacks credibility now when his question about a guilty plea back and forth it like i can look at you and say oh you seem very honorable self or someone else could be looking at you and say i think you don't even believe your you're talking about stigma he should or not have had to remember it that the judge thought he should remember to the judge was that they are but the the judge is in a much better position the district judge judge head to judge this then we are you're saying is a matter of law he said title to this really is a matter of law there was a reasonable probability that's essentially your argument because there is evidence on both sides of this well but there's contemporaneous evidence that he wanted to plead guilty at the time or so for judge to decide that he didn't is clearly erroneous and in addition aside from move factual determinations there are errors of law in the courts i want to plead guilty and the judge says ok you know you could be deported right no i want to plead guilty who later you say i didn't know i want you to board one hundred k ody it makes sense to say well look you were warned about theirs but here the judge never already has as a matter of fact ok already it made clear that the kind of a memo says it was using k already where somebody please guilty is not the kind of analysis and relying on roster is not the kind of analysis that the addition the court never i mean the the problem here is in the difference from k o a t is the court advised him that the government had to prove that he knowing possessed a controlled substance and that that seven sort of marijuana and the court clearly erred and in this court does apply the clear error standard to credibility findings they just just don't get on a walk in the park the court clearly erred in ignoring the the uncontested cisneros convinced me to go to trial by explaining that the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew by this which controlled substance he'd possess that it was specifically marijuana not some other substance and also sixteen at the april th a b s hearing mr gonzales testified it says narrows told me that we might be successful do the things that were happening in mexico due to all the violence that was happening in mexico that we might be credible because he would be able to show evidence like videos that you could show to the judge later in his direct examination m snowden was telling me that the government had to prove i was transporting marijuana there was no discussion whatsoever about quantity i would note also during the two day trial testimony it was absolutely no discussion f times on things that benefited the united states some things that had no bearing on the outcome let me ask you this i mean you know i can only speak for myself but i tend to agree that the conclusion of whether there's a reasonable probability would have pled guilty in this case because of the differing facts and conflicting evidence is a question of fact and we give deference on that and i don't believe clear review means we just disagrees and we do it our way but that said if the court did make legally or then what impact is that hat do we send it back and say this is the law judge and given that do you still come out the same way or do we overlook legal errors if they're harmless or how do we end analyze because i do have a concern about this conclusion that there was evidence at trial because i don't think that it's actually that would tend to support pleading guilty if you're going to lose maybe i'm pleading so  if we were to conclude that was a legal error that the determination that there was evidence to support the conviction the that's not legal error per se it's a legal error as relates to this question then how would we h from as you were saying you had a question about the except when i say i'm called drugs and yet i did it because some bad man made me do it i've negated criminal intent and i've opened the door to to rescue coercion on the hate you just like this one the one with except that it i had a conversation with my lawyer he told me we can file a case because of the drug violence in mexico there is no discussion he testified twice that they had b s hearing on direct exam and then a cross exam of later and it may file an enhancement under section fifty one dollars to double your mandatory minimum from ten years to twenty years the prosecutor is going to have ask you if quite frankly if your story is a little ridiculous you lost one hundred and nine pounds in two thousand and six and so the cartel members call you up in two thousand and thirteen in order for you three thousand six hundred and eighty pounds  touches me as a matter of a lot like you know we had a physics situation where physically something could happen or something like that maybe that's an instance where we would reverse but this isn't a physics problem this is a credibility issue and this is with these records do but again i just have to come back to the fact that the uncontroverted testimony of actual physical evidence of them are shuttering to the court the mr wanted to talk to us laurie about pleading guilty before the mast was filed and before we were his lawyer got to trial weight is not subject to impeachment it's not subject to credibility narrows i mean i believe it to the court i understand the court reviews and it's clearly erroneous standard and i'm sure the court will do that and i hope in the end that the court finds that he has met the standards of