sasa on behalf of christina williams who is present and i'd like to try to reserve two minutes for over three decades this court has staunchly protected the district court's authority to decide whether to grant a motion to withdraw in the interests of fairness and justice the only time that this court has reversed a district court in this context is when it applied a more rigorous standard than the liberal and generous fair and just standard and the reason for this is clear at the end of the day the criminal justice system's moral credibility its legitimacy its efficacy depends upon its reputation for fairness and justice in the community and it is the district court judge who takes the change of plea who's on the ground who is the impartial representative of the community who this court has entrusted with balancing the equities between finale and an individual's right to trial but isn't there a problem here with five years between when the incident happened repeated violations of the conditions of her release and then after five years and she goes to a two y program and does very well then the judge says i don't think i have the authority to do this but i want you to appeal he's right he doesn't have the authority to do that does he yes he does your honor this court has been very clear that for any reason that doesn't exist at the time of the change of plea a court has the authority to weigh the equities there are this court has been very clear and i ask a question about that i  and i mean i don't mean to cut you off but you the answer seems to be the language which does seem to support esoterically your position that anything that doesn't exist at the time but if you go read that quote in context it seems to be at the end of a list of examples all of which have to do with things that would have caused the defendant not to plead guilty in the st place and so i'm not sure that we can read it quite as broadly that language that you're quoting as you would want to suggest i think you can i think this court has never said anything like the list that comes before it it's that or any other reason and th has stressed that it the any other reason doesn't need to be about prejudice at trial guilt or innocence because there's a whole host of factors that go into the criminal justice system's reputation for fairness and justice in the community it's not specifically as this court has said over and over again to individuals specific merits at trial it's not a it's not only about trial there are other factors here and so the list it's impossible to come up with a specific list that a district court would need to go through and i think we need to keep in mind that the reason why the district court is interested with this is because it is taking the change plea and it is on the ground and can assess those variety of factors which are unique in any specific case and the district courts are not in the business of withdrawing change please this is not something that this court needs to police district court judges take the change of plea if they were willing nilly letting people withdraw their change of plea they would not be able to manage their courtroom or their docket which is why this court has in trust a district court with weighing those equities but that seems to me the problem with your argument by the way i mean your client there's no question your there's a lot of sympathy for your client as seems like it at the district court had it dead on that this you know everyone's happy for the rehabilitation that took place but but where are the was crystal clear it's not about rehabilitation per se any the court said over and over again any time an individual gets their life back they would want to withdraw their change of plea and he was very careful to say that's not why i'm doing it i'm doing it because this is a once in a lifetime situation the judge retires next week in his entire thirty years this is the only time that these facts have lined up this way and what facts other than the rehabilitation work it's not just rehabilitation it is the extraordinary really rehabilitation that was unforeseeable at the time and i would also say there's an overlay here that goes to the interest of fairness and justice in terms of the colloquy that the judge had with miss williams we have him on and fourteen saying over and over again i with i keep my promises i no matter what i keep my promises then the next court appearance is august of two thousand and seventeen and the judge says well i don't know at this point whether i agree with the government but at some point in time from my standpoint good cause does exist st a motion to be brought and i'm willing to put this out for one year before sentencing and if you are miss williams where i think you're going to be on the spectrum of success at that point i will entertain a motion to withdraw your plea so that you do not suffer for a life time of the felony conviction that would stand in your way of success that i think you're going to achieve now mr williams then went out and did exactly what the judge asked you to do and continued her extraordinary performance and then when she comes back the judge says very good mazing i've never seen anything like that but i don't have the authority it's not always a rosy story is it and i would like to know rule thirty two says that the court must impose a sentence without unnecessary delay and you think five years is unnecessary delay you know one of this court has said delay never goes to whether in reason is fair and just it goes to an individual scandal or there is no argument here that there's no issue with candor here so the delay is of the court's own making and this also goes to the fair and just in terms of how the lay community well but rule thirty two says if there is delay the court may for good cause change any time limits what was the good cause when she repeatedly violated all of the conditions by continuing to abuse substances from when she entered the plea until she  think six or seven months that's not the delay here the delay is that ms williams instead of agreeing to go to prison which would have been the easy choice she went to deland street and she spent two years there and then volunteered for an extra nine months came out with the profession which very few people come out with she came out with a letter that i think historically dilantin street has never ever done and that's what this court is recognizing and the delay is this  or not to whether the reason is fair and just and in this case the court itself set it out for a year and said if you continue on this amazing trajectory that i will entertain this motion to withdraw so that you do not suffer a lifetime of a felony conviction now i think in the interest of fairness and justice that qualifies in terms of both during the criminal justice system's reputation for  fairness and justice legitimacy i think as a lay person they would under if understood the judge to be saying you continue doing really well and then i will do this so that you can exercise your right to go to good morning to me please the court had ricardo representing the united states in this matter venet williams made a lot of efforts to rehabilitate herself but at this point she's basically changed her mind about her deal with the government and would like a different solution importantly the reasons don't have anything to do with the case merits rule them of the facts and effectiveness is a counselor new evidence in fact the claims are divorced from the merits and the procedural posture of the case and the claim being made is essentially that discretion  very substantial reasons that relate either to the case merits or some procedural de facto process problem that has happened during the course of the case there are other mechanisms available to get rid of this felony conviction yes what are those mechanisms so she would seek a pardon from the executive branch that's one option that the court mentioned at the at the final sentencing hearing but that was definitely an option for her yeah there are other options besides now at this point in proceedings i don't believe so i know that some districts operate a diversion program that would be really difficult in this case because of the repeated violations that happened near the beginning of the case early on there were pretrial violations that put everyone in a very difficult spot of how to proceed and would have made i think a diversion from the outset unavailable so was this a plea bargain that was a package deal with her codefendant so if she's allowed to or draw her plea what happens to him i think you could also probably petition i know he's been sentenced already it's long past which is one of the problems that we highlighted before the trial court below it as far as a prejudiced of the government or that prong i don't know of any case on point for that being that he's sentenced and and had subsequent proceedings even after that now i don't know what effect that would have but i i don't doubt that there would be further proceedings on that codefendant as well when he when he did impose sentence she was not present  yes and the court did the day before at sentencing and those the waiver of appearance was put on the record and i don't believe that that is a claim being made on appeal as well i don't because i do this every day result of this could end up with me spending most of my time taking pleas from defendants who pled guilty and they now want to withdraw their plea because they've done well i understand your honor there were many things that were unusual about the proceedings below and as the court will know the three year delay from the change of plea told them that the sentencing the government did object if you look at it you are ninety four dollars we objected to the to your continu announced that he would send cert to no time at all some sort of supervised release but that was it i just heard that the judge is retiring is he going to go back to the same judge did the word retire used properly or was it going to take senior status what do we know now i believe he's retiring as of february st retirement current was going to go back to another judge correct so whatever this judge might have said about the sounds may or may not be binding on the next one correct but the sentence wouldn't change the underlying felony conviction right now but not ok to go back to the same judge the only thing at stake in this case is whether or not there's a felony conviction on the books because she would not be serving any time that's correct she did not serve i believe she was sent  time served with the three months where she was remanded after some pretrial violations and with no supervised release to follow but i mean we would start again the trial process and if it were to go back to a new judge would be would you ask for time or would you say the sentence of the earlier judge you know intended to issue is fine with us to be made to be mines on that if it went back just for sentencing i don't believe we made up our minds on that obviously it's been some time i haven't kept up close i know that as of the time of the ultimate sentencing she did very well i have not gone back and checked and see what the history is after that whether she's been doing well or not so would depend on a host of factors that have happened in the interim that we're not privy to that would be fleshed out in the record can i ask a question about this language nor take as canio about any other reason for withhold withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his at i think defendant has a decent argument if you read that language as it as you would what's the government's position on that i mean do you have to read that in context of the examples that were provided above or is that other cases that made clear that it has to relate to an exercise a potential exercise of the option to plead guilty that existed at the time i think and as the court is aware that language comes from the real  started to be affirmative reasons as far as we look for rule eleven the facts we look for in any circumstances or any other reason or that any other give an example of whether any other reason was applied i believe as united states versus garcia in that case was the discovery of a a some potentially new evidence i'm sorry and i mix that up davis that was an any other reason case where there was a gross mixed characterization of the sentence and in fact the district court found ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to but again that would have related to something that existed before she made the plea that could have changed is that right or not or is that something that arose after that after the plea well the advice would have happened around the time of the plea and then the discovery that was incorrect what happened well after right but that i guess that's my point when i look here at newly discovered evidence intervening circumstances these things seem to apply at the time of the plea that that yes you discover it later but it has to affect something at the time of the plea but maybe i'm reading that myopically i don't know why i don't i don't know that the question of the time is exactly dispositive but i do know is that while that what is dispositive i mean maybe there is nothing that's why we have these factors but it is true that the language the factors that we've adopted or the courts have adopted don't exactly relate back to the language in rule eleven right so i think this court has set some clear categorical limits for example reus or t says it cannot be a change of heart even if it's a good faith change of heart or notes that withdrawal is the exception and in that instance the if the intervening circumstances non binding district court opinion does not have sufficient weight to be a fair and just reason there are misunderstanding of the law subjective misunderstanding of the law is not sufficient that was united states versus jones newly discovered evidence that's not related to the defendant's case although garcia did discover this was related to the defendant's case had noted that if it's unrelated surely would not result in a fair and just reason for withdrawal so i think the court has said some limits and they all relate to either the merits of the case or the integrity of the process procedurally has to be tethered to that and i would note as well that  the the burden for this motion is on the defendant the defendant has demonstrated for just a reason the defendant has to point to some authority allowing it withdraw for this reason they haven't done it and instead  would like to respond quickly to the issue of package clee deal one hundred and sixty eight dollars which is the plea agreement makes it very clear that it is only at the option of the government that the defendant is allowed to withdraw a plea the package deal has absolutely no bearing in this case and in terms of sentencing this isn't about sentencing miss williams has been sentenced this issue is about whether she is allowed to go to trial obviously if she goes to trial and loses then they'll be issues with sentencing but that's not what this case is about it it the supreme court in a goldberg in that case clearly made it made it very clear that individuals post qually conduct can be a basis for withdrawing an individual's change of and all of the cases that the government relies on whether it's rios ortiz in swimming or may whether in all of those cases it's very clear that the reason being proffered existed at the time of sentencing those cases are not case it would be a dangerous road for this court to go down to suddenly start stripping district courts of their authority when they're the ones that take the change of plea they're the ones in the community to decide what is a fair and just reason in the interest of fairness and justice to withdraw the change of plea that would be on precedent and it would be a dangerous road for this court to go down and this is a technical question but it may be of some relevance of the practical outcome as whether district judges should be stripped of their authority got it ok thank you well before we quit i'd like to emphasize what judge nelson said this is a story of perseverance and achievement by ms wilson by m williams and you don't get a letter from me silver for not on she was tough customer so there's there there is quite a strong record here and a quite extraordinary record for which we compliment was william's