irreconcilable conflict this irreconcilable part of this leaving the extensive part of this is what troubles me yeah there were some problems and there always will be between attorney and i'm thinking a trainer client ever going to always see eye to eye but obviously failed because on the morning the trial was to start cash trial counsel again raised the issue although he raised it it wasn't exactly clear in fact that he was taped pointed out to the court that he was a clear exactly what good morning my name is gregory gruber and i am an assistant united states attorney for the western district of washington and i'm here representing the united states today your honor i think that the chant that the court's questions for a counsel as to the new the new counsel question the motion for new counsel being denied really goes to the heart of the matter mr senate did the best he could with a very very difficult client who himself is admitted temper problem caused all the problems that were ever raised in front of the court the court gave both counsel and the defendant ample opportunity on both occasions to explain any problems and he addressed everything that was raised a defendant does not have his choice to disappoint the counsel and this would have been his third appointed counsel if the court had brought in a third counsel another new counsel a defendant should not be allowed to dictate to the court when a trial starts and how many attorneys he gets include a are simply by being difficult with his lawyer or vice refusing to communicate with them when there is no objective reason for doing so and that's what we have here that's exactly what went on in this case or over the record shows that the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion because any problems that were brought up on the records of the judge were merely intermittent and both both the defendant and counsel basically minimized the problems that is they showed mr sena went through the each complaint raised by mr mcdowell the court address them as being even determinative or not really a problem and would never mr mcdowell was given a chance to say anything else that he had a problem with he didn't have any other problems cent before sentencing yes your honor and i think at that point i would say of the two that might be the more troublesome but let's look at what really happened here the letter didn't raise any new  well i think that that the fact that he raised the issue again really did not cause any problems that should cause this court to send it back there there there was just no reason that it really needed to be addressed again and in fact at the stenting hearings mr mcdowell it's all or it's basically to minimize the problems yeah we've bumped heads a few times well that's not an problem and i was i think that's right there there was nothing perhaps the court should have addressed that but mr ekdahl head at every opportunity to speak at the sentencing hearing he could have raised himself at that point i'm not necessarily saying the burden was on him but he's shown no compunction before when given a chance to speak to address any matters like that and in fact at sentencing basically said you know i do i do have a temper problem in fact i've gotten into anger management courses that the f t c which basically my my butting heads with my lawyer encouraged me to do and i know i'm bettering myself now i'm talking about firing guns i'm concerned maybe nobody else knows but i'm i'm concerned it seems to me that it says ritually admitted in the briefing that the two firearms should not have been charged in two separate i don't quite see how one justify not stain judgment withholding judgment and stain sentencing on one of those turnarounds and then seeing what happens in the future months i'm sorry what about one hundred seventy six months which looks like it's imposed on each of those ballots which of course we can't be all right again why shouldn't why should we tell the district court to straighten out well again your honor i think if it if the case had to go back for some other reason i would agree that would be a good thing to do as long as it was there i don't think it's necessary in this case however because i think it's pretty clear that on remand the judge based on his comments at the sentencing hearing which still give one hundred seventy five months and the fastener of the can you give one hundred  two thousand and four and united states v off my from the second circuit in two thousand both of those cases would at first blush appear to support the the defense's position on that however if you if you look at the cases that far and was involved in an offense as far as like being a ban semiautomatic assault weapon there were not any specific findings as to that effect there was a jury finding that the that mr mcdowell did possess all three of the cases support the government's position here that this was in fact an unlawful firearm for him to possess both under washington state law which the only different element was the interstate nexus and off i goes to that argument your hon legal one more legal what is your authority for well unfortunately your honor other than that those new cases we had thought at the time of the brief that this was really a case of first impression we couldn't find any other stories so i don't have any