the court asked her what she had done well through counsel and she said she understood the charge that she had time to talk about the charge with her with her client with her counsel  she answered the trial court's questions at the time of the plea that she understood she gave up the right to challenge the sentence the way it was computed the court unless the court departed above the guideline range which the court did not in this case we submit the defendant has been treated fairly there there is no sentencing disparity similarly situated defendants are not really similarly situated they cooperated with the united states in various trials they received life sentence or this case had three defendants left a week before trial apparently the defendant had decided to plead guilty to the telephone count to go out of the mandate mandatory five you know arranged take the telephone count she didn't she her council didn't even show up for or she showed up he had been in custody we locked him in we kept in a locked up the pretrial services recommended mr james stay out on bond we went to go along with that she got in the drug treatment program completed that program and then violated the bond with three  trials we want to disc ace to go away based upon what we know about mr savage we know that he had criminal criminal convictions we believe that the range and it was an overlapping range that we ha  her husband's phone it was on jorge salazar means phone and that's where we received a lot of the calls and the calls we received were between her husband and mr young and she was intercepted once relaying they both have baggage but they were cooperating to sign it's and they had placed the hat on mr james and excuse me mr savage and his wife that the senate and the defendant's involvement in helping mr savvich distribute heroin that he received from  salazar and while the dissent was only intercepted on one telephone call your honor that was not the evidence we had we had ever saw her involvement her involvement repeatedly with her husband in this well over one hundred grand conspiracy we simply took at the last minute a plea that we thought yes and up until the morning of sentencing for the husband his range was higher his range was of twenty two we thought it would be higher based upon his criminal convictions but it's criminal convictions didn't count they weren't counted they we didn't have to prepare for her for trial but that's the husband he didn't get the third point super acceptance he got two points off and at the last minute the morning of sentencing and then for the pre sentence report was prepared giving him a range twenty five range twenty a price range twenty down to a level down to like two more points down to a level nineteen the court still going toward that there was no hiding the ball in this case there was no hiding the ball from judge ray in this case he was the trial court in the co defendants case he took the clear in this case and sentencing disparity is not a good issue but they argue their sentencing disparity i submit there's no they haven't reached the level to show a sentencing disparity in this case or constitutional violation that resulted in the sentencing i think the the fact that the charge was read to her the charge was straightforward she was asked what she had done she admitted what she was done for her counsel asked her about the nature of the call that she had  and i submit that she has admitted the elements through her change of plea colloquy with the court by answering the questions rather than the questions being given to her and the advice that was given to her by reading