very clear about what a district court needs to do the pistol case for example talks about extended conversations the prime case talks about the importance of follow up questions the district court there said is there anything else you'd like to bring to my attention del zotto gonzales and other cases talk about the importance of specific questions rather than vague open ended ones that leave the burden on the defendant to articulate his concerns incident in the sense that the district court judge really took out after defense counsel for not doing their job and not getting onto this case sooner and that defendant was there in courtroom yes and for that so you can understand why you might think that he was not being well represented i think come in the next morning when he asked for new counsel and it's really based on counsel's refusal to file motions that she wanted in the judge explained why they were worthless and then this was a case which is didn't take a huge amount of preparation he had a gun down his leg think that's correct in the ordinary case but then i'm not sure that this is the ordinary case well thank you your honor let me address the points that the court has made if i can remember all of them first says concerns actually were the courts correct that he began by talking about two motions that his attorney refused to file for him and the district court said well that's correct i would agree that those motions are worthless but we don't know what else he had on his mind your honor because the court didn't give him a chance to say anything he said and i want to state and the court just cut him off and said wait a minute you don't get to talking here the co i'm not here to answer your questions but this was a colloquy in which the court actually was there or should have been there to answer his questions and so in response to the court's comment that the issues that mr burke's raised were strategic ones i think one of the responses is well that's all the district court heard because that's all he let him say and the second answer to that is that while the attorney may have been legally absolutely correct in not raising those motions the focus of the inquiry actually has to be something beyond counsel's competence or the soundness of her trial strategy it has to be on the nature of the conflict between the two of them which brings me to what i think the court's next point was the relationship between mr burks and his counsel during the course of the trial and it's true there were no distractions and the record does show that they confirmed it although of course the content of those conversations isn't known but the the answer to that your honor is that the district court was obliged to consider the state of the attorney client relationship at the relationship could be made at the point of appeal so that's one answer to to the court's second question the next answer to the courts second question is that we don't really know what the content of those conversations what the content of those conversations was and the third answer to the cart court's question as to the overwhelming nature of the evidence and the well it is simplicity of this case to prepare there may whether the case was straightforward or simple or what what matters was that mr burke excuse me had a right to expect full preparation from his attorney at the moment the trial was supposed to begin and due to the district court's extended discussion what he perceived as counsel's deficiencies the day before mr brooks had every reason to believe that he did not have that full preparation and so that's the point at which this has to be evaluated not later at the end of trial when it's clear that mishandle did get an acquittal on one count or when it's plain that the evidence against was fairly consistent and hard to refute it has to be evaluated at that moment and so i think that is that's how i would answer the court's concerns and i think i got them all t reason for making the motion the request when he did make that request and again he did because timeliness is not some kind of flat jurisdictional bar the prime case makes clear that it's kind of the nuanced wholistic if you will in ry about whether the timing was reasonable or not and here it was was very understandable and even if the motion was late of course the district court didn't say anything about how that factored into it consideration in fact it didn't mention timeliness at all it just seemed to get irritated with mr parks and say i'm not here to answer your questions we're getting the government back in here and we're calling the panel in unless the court has furthe questions i'd like to say the balance of my time for a bottle illegitimate conflict did not exist between the defendant and his attorney that represented a true breakdown in communications between the two you're certainly not going to bless the district court and are you that's not my intention to that your honor you know what he said was don't talk when i'm talking and don't talk yourself talk to your lawyer and to talk to your lawyer whom you're trying to his place was certainly not appropriate that edition your honour's at the onset if the pres the suppression hearing which was a day before trial again the defense counsel and the defendant himself did not express any type of disagreement or a conflict or any difficulty in communication between the two a more moreover as a record will indicate that joined the suppression hearing itself the defendant did confer with his attorney at least twice during the proceedings  communication or in their relationship in the weeks prior to the trial date and factored in an indication of any type of difficulty or breakdown any type of communications not occur in seoul the joy it was about to be brought down to be aware and was able to did make that make a determination when it denied defendant's request for substitute counsel specifically at the onset of the of the first day of trial the defendant first issue excuse me the defendant first issued the court personally as well over with regard to defense comment that defense counsel should have passed this case a long time ago because she was of the office this if anything it perhaps reflects more of the distributions with the courts ruling to be represented by his attorneys insult the very end of these proceedings which until after the district court indicated how it would rule on the two issues that he raised he did at the very end and again there's nothing in the  rigorous defense for the defendant and as such your honor is based on the totality of all the circumstances here in this case which are comprised of not only of the events that occurred on the day of trial but however during the week prior to trial the court had the district court had sufficient information before it to realize that there was not a true conflict that you're between a defendant and his attorney and consequently to disk or did act within his discretion when tonight a defendant's request for new counsel and that's on page ninety four of the excerpts and even if the court does think that that could have been articulated more clearly at the beginning of that colloquy since this came right at the end i would point the court to the franklin case in which there was never a formal motion for substitution of counsel but this court said that the defendant's actions and those of his lawyer made it clear that that was what was being requested and that furthermore if it wasn't really clear surely that just points to the inadequacy of the  that is that as to the good relations that allegedly existed between mr burks and his attorney during trial i would point to mr burke says a complaint that he had seen his attorney very little the case that only existed for five weeks he'd seen her twice she'd been out of the office for three weeks in you know in the five weeks before trial and that that points to a basic lack of trust and confidence in her ability thank you your honor so unless there