and frankly your honor we did not raise this issue before judge wright hart the district court judge because the issue hadn't been decided by the united states supreme court because of that failure to also have to show that there's a reasonable probability that your client would not have pled guilty but for the air can you meet that burden on this record your honor i believe so doubter could have perhaps challenge the methods of how the government intended to prove that knowledge in its brief the government says well he went to prison so he knows it well not before the district court have i had an opportunity to challenge through a motion that many can you actually prove he was in and you certainly and you just set it up you said he could have done this but the standard of plein air review is whether or not he can prove it by a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the error so i don't think they could have filed a motion which may or may not have been successful but i don't think it could have standard can establish your burden of reasonable probability so what else is there asserting that your client claims lack of knowledge of his status as a felon i am asserting that he has raised this issue and i just that mean that if he had known about it before he pled guilty he would not have pled guilty again i'd be in the matters regulation your honor with regard to that issue with what he would have done they've not done right and i could only say one could have thought of trying to supplement the record but you can't supplement something that wasn't and never happened and that's that that's the problem with these  show that he would not be pleaded guilty if he had known that the government would have to prove that he was aware that he did felon with all that entails on this record and we don't even we you're not even asserting that that he wanted to put the government to the burden of proving his knowledge of his status as a convicted felon and knowing that that would mean putting in his six year prison sentence before  who's ok and even worse yes i understand that but again if that's what you're not asserting at well he doesn't really want that opportunity  well you know so it can't be a violation this is plain and refute there has to be a violation of substantial rights that calls into question the very integrity of the proceedings this is a farce he did so out of withdraw his plea and have the in the plea i understand that but the issue is now different how could the government approve them and even though people can say it's easy to prove that i he has he might have concepts of motions that are presented to the court that might hinder them you know but i guess assuming he could raise that motion and there were an indian women a issue or something to raise with the court the question comes back to you have to establish a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty and as judge sykes pointed out you haven't even asserted that in the priests here and and maybe that's all you can say is basically he would have not have pled guilty had he known about the additional knowledge requirement recognized by right he was convicted on multiple occasions of crimes punishable by more than a year he actually received at least two of them one for six years of one for four years there's nothing absolutely nothing in the record that demonstrates that his memory or his understanding of the fact of those was in any way impaired and moreover the evidence against him was overwhelming the substantive charge and he had he could have no possible interest and putting before a jury the fact of his of his convictions and the sentence that he clearly last week as well have you thought further what the appropriate vehicle might be on these two wrecked appeal cases for re half if an issue were presented or if there were a question as to whether or not the defendant would have withdrawn his plea or would that have pled guilty in the st place are these appropriate in the appropriate circumstances for remained to the district court to make factual or would not have pled guilty had he known of the additional requests requirement much less a realistic possibility that he would that the defendant was actually permitted to plead guilty to a crime he did not could commit where that's clear we would say the court should have for in cases where there is something race there's some reason in the record that demonstrates that there is a potential there is the potential that that the defendant was unaware of his convi case and a felon in possession conviction if the defendant has pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession he says minute that he's been convicted of a felony and you know as i said to your opponent it's like angels dancing on the head of a pin to distinguish between admitting that you've got a felony conviction but not admitting that you don't know about your own complexion i agree that it's difficult a case where that would be the case but so there will never be we have belief on direct appeal in the case of a felon in possession conviction or it would be an exceedingly rare i was basically the latter one just because i can't because i can't conceive of a set of circumstances as i stand here at my cases involving immigration status which was the fact pattern and rehash and the particular provision of the statute that was an issue thera there may be other status right where there are there are knowledge issues that are plausible but not in the felon in possession context but i would agree with you that it would be at a minimum exceedingly unlikely certainly in this