did not obstruct or affect interstate commerce in regards to this matter how many diamonds are mined in the united states zero right where did the defendants come from the defendants came from or chicago yes and the story was alleging that the robbery was to be committed in new york there was no there are no diamonds from the united states we're just friends from chicago and poland about to commit a crime in new york and it's your position that this has nothing whatever to do with interstate commerce that seems a little strange well let me let me say let me put it as this we are not disputing that a diamond merchant is interstate commerce our second argument disputes whether in regard to this matter and also through the first argument that this was a diamond merchant there is no there was nothing offered by the government in regards to the specific individual in new york being a diamond merchant or involved in a business in regards to the matter they put on an expert don't tell into the second issue in regards to the matter who indicated but not affecting interstate commerce if it's a private citizen it's not even a de minimus effect in regards to the matter on interstate commerce nor realistic probability the travel itself which you're on who was pro se who had not had a lawyer for i think about seven months until she got to the point where rule thirty two required her to address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence and she didn't do that the transcript confirms this era which i think is a clear error i don't think it has to be a plain error up because i don't think quote you are welcome to make a statement as well before sentences imposed george said that and he made a statement was missing what was missing here on up was this and that you and sequences of that to send the thing was as follows and i will get specifically to that statement first you will get there now what about that statement is enough what's inadequate about it is that it's linked to the first statement the judge made on page fifteen and i would ask you to look at that page fifteen of the sentencing transcript where the judge says what i would like to do now and this is after the guidelines the result is for the governments if you like to do now is ask for the government arguments about what sentence is appropriate and then mr status logic you also will have the opportunity to make a statement before sentence is imposed so that's the first time the judge says he can make a statement the government then goes on and makes a normal thirty five fifty three series of arguments and then the judge says on page eighteen and i would ask you to look at that to the language you quoted at line ele are welcome to make a statement as well before sentences imposed what the judge did was give him as his own attorney the opportunity as well to make a thirty five fifty three statement he then goes on for nine pages as you saw and promise all kinds of things and i'm still puzzled what the rule shows is that george before imposing sentence mosque addressed the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sense that's correct that's the language of the rule now in what respect did this invitation from the court not satisfied that language because the invitation was directed at the first part of the rule which says that the court must provide the defendant's attorney an opportunity to speak on the defendant's but how that is done through times that he's invited to speak he's speaking as counsel for himself is not separate people it says it must address the defendant personally the judge did that to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the so i still don't see what the georgia statement didn't do i think it was no limit on the information he could  have been led by the flow of this transcript to believe that he should respond to the government's topic which was thirty five fifty three issues it would there's nothing to suggest that he was supposed to speak to mitigation think that was an admonition after was one it was worthwhile that is correct that is correct and end of the final point two final points quickly if he does start to talk about mitigation only after she announces sentence and that also tells us that he didn't understand before that he was speaking to medication or elocute inc and the second point is he is to be released in january of next year so if the court agrees with this point that he deserves a recent saying which we believe he does it should happen on an expedited basis i was puzzled by the discussion then the summary of argument  of the brooklyn man the brooklyn way brooklyn man who wore a black suit and so on which misled the jury thinking into the thinking that the brooklyn man was an orthodox jew and thus the diamond already pointed out the defendants believed that they were traveling too much in order to make a dime and dealer and that that evidence alone would have been sufficient but the entire plan that the plan that was also attempted involved interstate travel and the purchase of goods and interstate commerce including the rental cars until two do they have this notion that all they have to do to fly around and brooklyn would be prior to the occasion when they went to do the robbery to case the area and in doing that they know they saw that it looked to be an orthodox jew just from the way the people were dressed in the area looked to be an area where orthodox jews resided the evidence was also that the information that they had obtained from a man named alex who was the intended victims former business partner was an orthodox jew and so they expected him to be jewish they expected him to be a diamond dealer because that's and they expected him to live in a particular neighborhood at a particular residence because that's what they had been told by this fellow named alex  i'm not going to write that those conversations are is ri truck proceeded and the defendants began arguing that the all of the story was just made up nonsense and pure fantasy and that they really had no intent to commit the robbery the diff the government   defendant's stanislav it was offered an opportunity for elocution just as as you said judge is your book read the statement that you quoted from the transcript of page eighteen was the government  was the court's offer the court was not obligated to you know anything else and during the statement made by the defendant they covered nine pages of transcript and in fact covered a whole host of points including arguments that were in mitigation regarding his professed innocence and many many additional factors that that were within the context of the dictation so for all these reasons the honor there was definitely a lot of talk in regards to this matter amongst the individuals and involved which worst not really great talk in regards to expectations about individuals however at no time was the name of a specific individual given no time was they know who a person was it came down to when the testified as to his opinion as to who diamond merchants are and then at trial they are shown a a picture of somebody who's had nine hundred fifty fourth who had who is looks like what the experts said that that issue becomes muddy but what they knew and what they didn't know in regards to the matter wand up being the farthest from the meyer said in both of her statements to the defendant you may speak also you may speak as well she told him he was doing the same thing as the prosecutor and she never  properly invoked rule thirty two and addressed him personally which would be something that would not be done old soul that's a separate right sacred right and a right that every defendant has and he should be granted it in this case ok thank you