asking that the case be reversed because my client a non citizen was facing mandatory deportation under eight u twelve twenty seven because he had committed the offense of drug traffic in the petition for writ of corum notice we have asked the district court that there was no proper advise a little under padilla versus kentucky and more specifically under the lever says united states opinion which says that even though a person who pleads guilty to an offense and is more likely or not then to be convicted of that offense nonetheless if that person wasn't informed by thousand and twelve when your client pled guilty that the court was required to admonish him at that point or is your argument just that his lawyer should have entered that at nine ish my argument was that the attorney was supposed to have much of obviously the the court's advisers at that time not did not hold up either on the leave or child does but under put the it says that the attorneys have to advise and that was petition you have to establish that there are sound reasons for your client feeling to secretly for earlier and as you know he pled guilty in january of two thousand and twelve he was sentenced he was transferred to ice in may of two thousand and seventeen and he brought this petition in october to seven two thousand and seventeen what were the sound reasons and did you argue those to the district court i did not argue why within five months of being transferred into ice custody five months but i five year span but the five year span i made no argument to the district court why he waited five years while he was in custody in federal custody that how can you meet your standard under corporate doubtless judge ryan the ryan as a federal detainee which we're claiming a federal detainee is not in the same position of to be able to conduct reasonable to diligence to find an attorney that would  focus on this type of work versus an attorney who could in his case he was fighting to have a sentence reduce he sought legal counsel criminal defense counsel to try to get his own six aware of immigration dangers and was working to free to try to stay in the country that's correct by the time he got around to set actual sentencing he had had  conversation although he had had a conversation with preach trial with his probation officer for his pre sentencing report informing them that he was looking at different possibilities to try to stay in the united states he did not say for instance that he knows it was a purse a purse a remove ability under twelve twenty seven there was no mention by his attorney who would who said to him in fat italy if you plead guilty to this you will be deported there's a big difference between saying look i've been in this country since i've saree years old i have daughters here and i'm going to try to look for a way where i can stay in the united states when there's no detainee around you at that time there was no there was no old detainer placed on him while he was awaiting  fighting for a redo a reduction in sentence i'm relatively certain that that detainer was placed on towards the end of his incarceration so that by the time that he was ready to look at his out date record that i see about wendi actual detainer was placed on him and in in in federal custody and that's because a lot of times federal  custody persons don't gather the tane are placed on them until they're getting near the time to get out and then they review the case to see if this person has some substantive defenses here she had the substance equally stated on his affidavit there's no way i would have played guilty had i known right then and there one hundred percent i could not remain in the country if if he had known for instance if his attorney had said look there might be a chance that you can do some kind of withholding of removal if there was any evidence to suggest look you know it's a long shot but yeah there is a way that you might be able to stay in the united states that would have come out of the hearing here and to the government's credit they agree they said you know you need to flesh this out at a hearing to see what was said to the attorney what was known by the attorney and then from that moving forward whether it's more likely than not that that was sufficient that he knew there would be these collateral consequences i reviewed the record there was a lot of talk about you know losing your firearms losing your certain licenses losing your right to vote in certain cases entire panel plea and this was after put the entire panel plea of losses of potential rights but there was no mention of immigration he was he was cooperating with the girlies discussing cooperation with the government right yes he was and that was part of that was probably in my opinion and i don't know this for sure and i don't want to state this as a fact but if you're discussing cooperation rights you're also probably discussing how you can obtain an s visa and his attorney would have said you know i don't know anything about us visas but if you contact immigration lawyer we can see about perhaps getting in that's visa so you won't be deported why is the case not moot at this point mr gutierrez since m has been removed from a country that's a good question judge it's not moot because this is his only way to even have a remote chance of coming back to the united states right now he's out of the country in fact reason is is earlier questions indicated to rid of corum openness is a really unusual remedy your theory at this point is that the conviction would be vacated yes and the government would have the option of trying him now many years later that would be an option yes it's been done before not in this case of course are there are other no no it's i don't mean to sound so familiar which i guess but judge i thought you were you did which i also had to drop out of the front of the the first step would be though if the core no this is granted is for hearing to be conducted to determine if his attorney did it vice and correct that's correct and i imagine that we could do that via skype where because obviously if he doesn't overcome on the contemporaneous nature are the assertions that the defendant didn't know which we don't have here we have post assertions that he didn't know and along the lines of telling us  timeliness but you'll agree that if he could that a hearing would be required correct to would not be vacating that commit conviction it would be reminding back to the district court for a hearing on that issue and you're not suggesting in your brief you you quote from the p that says the defendant it was advised that he's not under deportation at the time but he could be based on the entry of the judge but you're not suggesting that could take the place of his lawyer telling him no you know i'm not but i am suggesting that six years later he can't overcome the timeliness of that that was a twenty to fifty five motion that's not a motion under quorum no bus which really focuses on the finale of a judgment so i agree he he if there was if he had any doubts about it there was a time and place to raise that he clearly knew that this was an issue in the p s r judge hamilton i believe you mentioned that paragraph forty nine says that he's mr dunn horno said he's trying to make arrangements to remain in the united states so he was aware that this conviction more likely than not would result in deportation and when you look at that in conjunction with the sentencing transcript  at that point his thought or it appeared his hope for remaining was and asked these are p s r to not if i use him that there was per se deportation given what he was pleading guilty to should that impact the court's decision no not no it shouldn't i mean there might have at there might have been a place in time where it would have been under a twenty two fifty five brought in a timely fashion but six years later no not under a this is a very extraordinary highly unusual remedy to cli brot when there's a question of the defendant's actual guilt which isn't the case here i mean this happened this was a year after  don't do you agree the case is not a i agree it's not a good under the right al case in the ninth circuit the defendant was in austria at the time that that coroner novus was brought and on the ninth circuit proceeded and depends on the entry in the p s r and it also depends upon i think depends upon the entry in the p s r and also depends upon the sentencing transcript where the attorney clearly made mention that the defendant was aware of the deportation his statement he's trying to make arrangements to remain in the united states so i think in that comment it appeared to me and had a conversation with the p s r writer and that's paragraph forty nine there was some discussion between him and the p s r writer about the consequences of this conviction there were deportation does not seem to show up any work i mean i understand what you're saying but the actual term deportation doesn't know i don't think i saw that and you said something about the sentencing transcript i didn't see anything in the sentencing transcript where deportation was raised and you know in the us are the word deportation but i'm page one of the sentencing transcript the term the attorney is is talking to the judge and saying that his saying that there is per se deportation but i believe that that sentencing transcripts suggest that he and his clients and he and his client have discussed the fact that it's very likely that he cannot remain or could carry me in the country because of this but the word per se deportation is not there but again i think that this particular issue of i mean all those are valid points but this particular issue rises and falls on the