allowing these lateral challenges is the recognition that in some instances but for this defective hearing there when the then this tragic chain of events that led to the prosecution of the nonresident i just sort of arc did you i'm having a difficult time procedurally with the posture of this case as i understand it we are here on an appeal from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea correct ordinarily we hear these collateral attacks from an appeal that that we review the denial of the withdrawal of the guilty plea on an abuse of discretion standard correct so the question we have to ask is whether or not the district court properly determined that there was no fair and just reason to withdraw the plea and the reason was because my way or should not have allowed me to enter this plea in the first place because i had a viable challenge to an element of the indictment that he never filed or that  stage until we get past whether or not he had a where there was abuse of discretion in denying a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and that i'm still having problems looking beyond the procedural court does have we review the district court decision from of use discretion standard but if you look at at least in this russian law one universal trend or one common thread there is that if the judge made a legal error he per se  but you didn't therefore you waive that challenge and you've not given me a good enough reason to withdraw the guilty plea i would ask or to look at this looking at from a practical standpoint a if you have a trial attorneys in the position where they realize efficient way to fix what was an earlier failing so is your argument really that we should ignore the normal rule that says we don't look at ineffective assistance of counsel issues on director of view because the record is developed court had an opportunity to look at the issue any did in fact give a very good reason ruling on it the government had an opportunity to come in and file their objections and if you look at what should a trial attorney do in this position of methods of course you have a rule for what they did here was about way to handle the situation rather than giving rise to a whole host of those commission litigation which is much more complicated and indeed inefficient to the courts now i would like to just like way into the merits of this very have had a guardian and they would have said look we have excused each issue here we need to have a hearing at this hearing the family the whole whole nuclear family most likely would have showed up his public defender would have showed up he wrote a letter talking about this far conviction and the extenuating circumstances of that and how everybody came together to try to come up with a resolution of that case that would allow me to reform is life was not forget this is a very very young man and  defense case but what the parties did was they came together and came up with this plead arraignment allow mr here to be on probation because he is a young man and he's a young man capable of redemption and this is what makes this case different than your own waiting circumstances here and i think you're right on the right track they just need to look at this immigration judge he's the one who's going to make the decision he's the one guy as a discretion and if you put if everybody came together and put together a full hearing for this judge and said look this is a young man we believe he's capable of redemption has this young kid mr mayor here cortez says that when this child was born i made a change in my life and what better chance what better occasion to change your life than the birth of your  that the immigration judge said this is we're going to take a chance on this kid i'm going to let him stay here and be a father to this child and we're going to keep him on a short leash you're kind of there to your time is run we'll give you a minute on rebuttal in any event sure brief on the issue and what the consequences of having been seventeen and not having his procedural rights because he was seventeen in front of the i j a you agreed that we should remain and on that issue i the record was adequate just support the district judge's decision but that we should none the less remained on the due process as you are you now changing your positions now and if i wasn't clear i apologize what i meant was i mean it's a very popular on the brief i guess i want to know  can't quite tell but it appears to me from the transcript that the district judge was on the bench reading both the hour arietta decision and our moral in kwan decision and appears to me that he flatly misread them  say i'm reading from page ninety eight of the excerpts of record page thirteen of the transcript inclined arianna says the standard is plausible and as i read the district court statement here he doesn't say the standard is closet under more incline he says you actually have to show not just a possible case but you have to show the case and then i might have quite a different answer because then i'm reviewing fresh discretion his application of this proper rule to the facts but my problem is a threshold i don't think you applied the proper rule i appreciate that i guess  this court itself and examine the record and find i think that on this issue but if the court possibly applied the wrong legal standard but under the holding a neuro incline which does talk about the necessity of the stream hardship finding that on the record in this case there was no extreme hardship presented in court of the defense in their motion could have presented any and all evidence and all they presented was a letter from the mother of the defendant's child merely saying that that she had to pay all the bills three times over for you to be right that we can ourselves hold that the district judge was right i think you have to say that it would have been an abuse of discretion by the district judge applying the proper standard to have held that debt to twelve inch waiver was plausible let's say on these facts you say it's impossible for the district judge to come to any other conclusion that's your that has to be your argument i would maybe assert that were impossible but i would use the word reasonable i think it was reasonable for the court on these facts to make a decision even for us to say it's an abuse of discretion without knowing what the district judge would have done on the application of the proper standard for us to say on our own motion without remanding is to say that you could not reasonably have gone the other way it would have been an abuse of discretion and as a matter of comments appear to say that each hand tied least clearly looking at the facts of the case in the same facts that are before you now we are also enhanced by the information from the pre sentence report again which clearly show that this defendant at the time and that's any different from the normal prejudice that flows from the separation of the alien from immediate members of the now and that's the crux of this case is my case closed are you at are your own clan which is really at fundamentally what this case is about hearing this case like you should of you would have a presented with a seventeen year old child who is mean he would have a credible argument that he was making great growth and changing his life and that he could have been a good father to this u s citizen