was convicted in january of one thousand nine hundred six the fact that his conviction was a change through a trial by jury as opposed to a guilty plea had absolutely no effect on his immigration position notabl can not be a retroactive effect if somebody went it was convicted at jury trials or close to a plea and if given the opportunity what would you try to demonstrate we would try to demonstrate that the trial attorney excuse me his criminal attorney had investigated the criminal consequences of his conviction as such it had come to the conclusion that he was not likely to be convicted of and of friends or receive a sentence which would preclude him which would render him deportable or by extension without any quotation defenses has to actually chose to go ahead to trial why don't we hear from the other side and we'll give you an opportunity to respond we understand your position has very clearly and specifically stated it's your opportunity now to tell us why that's not right thank you your honor first i'd like to address the contention that he could not have reasonably relied upon the avail male ability to twelve serially because he was potentially facing a sentence of six years it's important to recognize we are seeking the opportunity to demonstrate that he could be had experience  actually have made no allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and his prior turning were merely seeking the opportunity to demonstrate that in his experience he thought that it would be possible and beyond that likely that he would receive a sentence croce not be  the elimination of two twenty is not to be applied retroactively then goes on to state a number of factors which are which are crucial to retroactivity analysis but not all of which are necessary in an individual case reasonable reliance thing or notis disturbing previously vested rights impairing of providing new legal impairments to prior conduct and of course reasonable reliance on the state of a lot of time extension they would have suffered a retroactive effect of the law which is per se and permissible under the proper rating of the statute it does not say that reasonably lines is the only mechanism with which to find retroactive effect of the law i did the other side saying there under no circumstances could we rely regard this reliance is reasonable based on the jaws of the trial that we're awaiting your client well your honor to go back to do what we were saying before even if you had been sentenced to six years under the sentencing guidelines that he could have served proper four or less and as indicated in our brief and it's important to recognize could he had an experience criminal attorney who in his opinion and it's important to recognize he was in fact sentenced to three years there's definitely some validity to his his underlying belief that he would be able to to get our client our client understand your your case just one brief addition your honor the government has said that there is no legal consequence to deciding to go to trial over qualify prior to the elimination of that relief under the government's interpretation that statute by necessity would mandate a distinction between going to trial and taking a plea that of course as our client who's actually has been removed his case demonstrates there's a tremendous legal consequence to that decision which was imposed subsequent to his decision to go t