here the first case united states versus shapiro named please the court good morning my name is andrew fry felt that i represent appellant robert shapiro this court must agree that it was wrong in one nine hundred ninety seven when it said that shapiro suffers no adverse consequences if looked to today it would say to itself indeed he suffered significant adverse consequences of war and cases says that this is not the time to challenge he challenged in the first place and the court denied his his his defendant didn't preserve the issue in the first instance because there was no issue to preserve he was pretty apprentice that he was sentenced and he was he was invoking a print in the second place but here what of what was i don't know well you see you answered me as to what raise the issue of whether a financial institution had been affected that's true he didn't know we were view for plan or you know my argument is that's not true you know i would like to remove this case from i would like to try to remove this case from the typical tracks such as we review for plain era where it wasn't raised below because he raised it in the first instance here as it was so and he was denied the opportunity to have it that shapiro claims that you know we have five different attorneys and it's true here over a nine month period he did have five different stories ok because got a really bad record he's been in a lot of trouble ok so these attorneys were telling him look just take a plea put yourself at at a judge at the judge's mercy and take a plea that's what he said they were doing that's why he chose to proceed pro se it necessarily follows that none of them had read this court's prior if any if any lawyer representing this guy had read this court's prior opinion they would have raised the issue so he said i have enough of these guys were trying to just sell me out i'll proceed pro se ok so it's true that ok thing said that i am raising an ineffective assistance claim there i suppose i've never heard of a twenty two fifty five ineffective assistance claim on a supervised release proceeding so i hope the court is going to reject the argument that ground  that i did not raise any issue in my brief about that about all of that no i did claim that the manner but not not so much on the front of hearing i raised about the hearing itself the what once once the waiver was done i did raise the issue though that he didn't really you know understand her sentencing reasoning and so he didn't really have the opportunity to challenge to make up to make come forward with the argument that i'm coming forward with now is that the risk of going  ok you're the one that ok when you say yes but that's the way it is but you see though that the none of the five trial lawyers took the time to read this court's prior opinion in this very case that's undisputed it says one of them would have raised it surely you know how i found out about this argument that i'm making now i read this court's opinion in this case so what in any of these people do it is is is she is my response your honor or four five lawyers failed to provide effective assistance is that my claim yes yes yes and i'm asking not to tell me to take bring it up on the twenty to fifty five because as i said i've never heard of a twenty two fifty five on a and the violation of supervised release conditions at the senate saying it's pretty easy it's the attempted sexual assault they would the details of what wasn't he told he was he was never provided written notice of what the ms yes i have reviewed the violation he was present for that right yes absolutely yes he was present for that we all know what a violation report looks like it's got the it's got the description of violations of supervised release condition this violated we do but submit it's not so so what i know the problem on that is going to be you know for me i submit it's going to be the court's going to say well that's not going to change what the district court's going to do if we send it back you've got to give them written notice i just it's just the same thing is going to happen again i want you know he can challenge the two hundred ninety seven days so if you do send it back he will have that opportunity even even if the district yes it would be greater than that because he thought it was less than  argued at some length that the defendant did everything he could the question warrant simply it is not dependent on whether or not the defendant made an attempt to appeal indeed the holding and or cheese sort of belies that argument court of appeals had decided the issue and got it wrong this would not be the time to challenge it there are set procedures and law with respect to when someone can challenge their underlying conviction the considerations and warren are even if the law was wrong in the underlying for example the a pretty issue a printer would have dictated if applied in the warren matter that the second circuit had actually gotten the issue wrong on the underlying conviction the principle stood so that the considerations were the interest and finality the orderly administration of justice and fairness dictate that regardless of what happened there is a time and an expiration date and he had an opportunity to challenge it and i don't know that it's dependent on that i think th did not necessitate that an appeal had been had and in the or cheese matter the same result occurred despite the fact that there had been no appeal there was no concern about the fact that the defendant hadn't sought further review it maintained that it is not an appropriate time to go back to an underlying conviction in the context of a violation of supervised release and at minimum there's certainly no plain error here the judge ross made this decision based on the law of the case as it stood at the time that it was warren dictated that this is not the time to address this issue and i don't know that in this matter we're now decades to move from the underlying conviction so there's sort of two questions being volleyed here one is whether the decision and in the immediate appeal on this matter was incorrect in stating that the defendant wouldn't be affected by the fifteen year sentence and the other is whether judge ross committed plain error in her sentencing and that's just not the case here she did not and it's certainly not under a plain error standard of review true would argue it is present here to answer that question with respect to judge traders ruling we have to go back nearly decades in the case last year anyway on the question did it affect going back to the evidence that had been presented in the matter what remains true what we do know without having gone back to the evidence at issue twenty years ago is that the checks were cash at the time th successor in interest of the bank could have easily been held accountable in some way perhaps not alternately but they certainly incurred at least a risk of loss by virtue of having to potentially defend any claim to liability on those checks  they did so the position is it is not necessarily that they lost dollars and i don't think that the law requires that i think the risk of loss is sufficient and i don't think it's a huge leap to assume that the successor in interest to a bank could somehow be exposed to risk of loss should for example someone claim that they are liable for their predecessors bad checks with respect to the propriety of the violation of supervised release hearing i think the record is clear that the defendant had actually reviewed the violation report your honor mentioned one instance in which counsel stated on the record in front of the in front of the client that she had reviewed it with him there was actually a second instance when he was first arrai where counsel went further and stated that he had actually indicated to her that he read the report himself and again that was without objection with respect to the speed with which the hearing was proceeded that was entirely in keeping with the defendant's repeated insistence that he wanted to plead guilty and be sentenced that day this was not a typical evidentiary hearing this was an acceptance of the defendant's guilty plea and i think judge ross went further by also having the number one number two i don't think it should have been a fact finding hearing as to whether or not the bank was the financial institution was affected because it's a jury issue plain simple so while i don't think there ever would have been took a couple weeks to get it from the archives and so when i was done with it after i filed the brief you know i assume that this court would want to go through that file very carefully to find out whether or not children with the financial institution was affected or not i was disappointed to call the warren is is finality and the orderly administration of justice here shapiro made a bid for finality and he made a bid for what the court calls an orderly and ministration of justice and his bid to have that