critical to the determination of this case it would be this the the nature of the error that we claim here was not in contrast to many other cases that government decided and we have knowledge and grief was not a question upon which reasonable minds reasonable legal if the advice the error of the deficiency of counsel that we complain of in this case was that she was flat wrong on the question of law in view of that the nature of that error set up faults if you will parameters for decision making by mr templeton what was the error the initiative in a way that it was one hundred sixty correct quite apart from the side even if they had agreed one hundred twenty we have jurors prudence in this this court and elsewhere across the country that even sentence can be the basis for clear green right yes or so that was a mistake but that's not urged by anybody in this case well it is where is the where is the allegation in the what this man was saying was that he thought his attorney had gotten some good evidence and he wanted to go to trial not one word is say had she told me that one hundred ninety degree one hundred ninety degrees  months i would have taken hundred sixty i would agree with that that's correct but here is why i don't think in case under hill the case that we all agree first strickland standard then the the evidence you cite would be the end of the case i agree problem here and the reason i point to president is i think this case is more like the alvarez case versus full team  just cited in brief and the case of the day case which is also cited when you have an error of law that it's just flat wrong in  z the error that was made was that the defendants that the petitioners counsel failed to tell him that he had the right as he did have to withdraw his plea and his be out now and this is the bit we're all trying to get through there is nothing whatsoever and not even an allegation that suggests that if he'd known it was a one ninety rather than one sixty he would have kept the one twenty deal and if we don't have that piece i don't find any prejudice unless you can explain to me where the prejudice is if there's if he rejects the one time deal yes or it doesn't matter whether the attorney's right about one six year one ninety is he still rejecting the deal what i can point to in the record judge clifton and perhaps this addresses your question as well judge of area and it is i think the best i can do here is to say that throughout this record he was principally concerned with the time that he was going to start even in the deposition which is the language that the court points to in the state points to he does say that it was partly his idea to withdraw the plea and partly not and he goes on to discuss the quality of the plea he was offered and the amount of time that he was going to have to serve so it's my argument here i acknowledge that is not the most direct statement of claim but my argument here is that in view of the nature of the error the prejudice which is the fact that he lost seventy months from his potential benefit is taken from the face of i would re for the superintendent it is indeed essential that the petitioner establish that he would have taken the one hundred twenty month deal and in this case there are a number of facts to the contrary in addition to those cited by the court  his plea for the one hundred twenty month sentence because he wanted to establish his innocence he believed that he said that people had claimed that he had done things that he did not do he was willing to take the lives hector test he was so strongly opposed to the one hundred twenty months since he believes that one hundred twenty months was simply too much time for what he had done and because this was his first time going to prison other than that i'll rest on as i say the fact that the consequences flood to him he would have been out today thank you thank you thank you for the argument give me the case just argued