knowing and intelligent waiver you have to form with a client of three things just will the nature of the charges against them the possible penalties number two and three the disadvantage of self representation in that  mean in effect the new forever hearing has to occur every time possible change well every time there's a possibility of self representation not every time you're on if you show up for a garden variety status rule is that the threat a waiver goes forward unless there's a change in circumstances are less counsel says he wants ones representation and several other circuits have adopted that for instance mcbride and the six circuit and th and the standard is just made a change in circumstances or intervening event that would suggest to the district court you better warn this fellow once again about the dangers of self representation and that happens here on the drug testing hearing judge wilson ordered never dentistry hearing now that becomes a more like a trial in that you have to cross examine a witness in this case a drug expert for the government and you have to comply with the rules of evidence so if a defendant is going to come  hearing which is really granted post trial there's some duty of the judge to recognize that and once again what does the judge have to say on the record in order to meet this standard as you view it i quality there's going to be an expert witness testifying you're going to have to cross examine him comply with the rules of evidence the government is represented by experience counsel representing yourself under those circumstances it's probably not a good idea if you and your it's your position that that occurs even post trial it does your honor if there's a significant change in circumstance or you hear you're talking about the sentencing portion of th perfectly well fulsome colloquy with with the defendant go through everything possible and you still wouldn't be satisfied because if there's a change of circumstances in a post trial world you so even apart from whether  government will focus its arguments which spectacle issue before this court is whether at the specific stage in the proceedings that is host trial pre sentencing the district court  is sufficient to trigger a new for rabbit hearing what's the government's position about that well your honor arnold does say that but are also says in the sense this proceeding that particular statement other than other than the trial related system so if you wanted it he'd say he wanted counsel specifically for sentencing and why he didn't know he didn't your honor and with respect to that court then with the defendant's assistance and with the defendant joining in i asked and found it a series of questions relating to his new trial motion there was a discussion about a grand jury question there was a discussion  at the entire record in order to assess whether or not the defendant has the requisite knowledge and in this case entire record shows that he had it in or he had been arraigned on the indictment he had been provided with multiple  attorney who had a bench warrant before him and came to the court to clear that warrant that was the sole purpose of that hearing he was obviously in a difficult situation and discretion but this wasn't a book or case this was a case where the defendant had not just incredible perjury the most peyton kind at trial and had and then throu