against united states and one way we know that is because that's what the judgment says you know i think you just said the magic phrase that your type he pleaded guilty right the supreme court's rule is that if you plead guilty you waive all non jurisdictional defects so the question is whether the argument you are now making is for jurisdictional argument because she if not under supreme court's doctrine it's been waived well it is a jurisdictional argument and how is that a jurisdictional argument given the statutory grant of jurisdiction to district courts to resolve all federal criminal cases because the advice that he was given the plea was that he was pleading guilty to use of a firearm in relationship to a prime of violence you know and and that is what the judge sentenced him and what does that have to do with federal subject matter jurisdiction beat because you can can only be found guilty of that to which you plead guilty you can there is federal subject matter jurisdiction of criminal prosecutions even if the defendant  innocent in fact or in law and at the end they'll actually be a judgment saying the defendant is innocent but if there is no federal jurisdiction whenever there is no crime then the defendant could never be acqui is because all the judge could do would be to dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but this is not a case where he's saying there's there's no price he's saying that the crime is the crime to which i pleaded guilty and of which i was found guilty and what does that have to do with subject matter touristic because the court could only sentence you first for something that you have pleaded guilty to that some your you're now trying to argue the merits what you're saying as  hear you is whenever the defendant is not guilty then there was no jurisdiction and that can't possibly be a risk no i mean i'm not saying he he is attacking his his son's on the ninth twenty four c which is tied in to the the allegation the one twenty four c that he used the gun in relationship to a crime of violence and that's what the judgment says and now that there is a question as to whether or not nine twenty four c applies to crimes of violence that's where the jurisdiction of twenty to fifty five comes in and the the a gun in relationship to the crime of violence the prosecutor made similar statements which are found that appendix pages seventy six and also pages eighty five to ninety six and as a result of that the court under the the judgment which is you know a matter of record it's there and in black and white and when we never see his or difference between what the judge said face to face of the defendant in court and what the the judge didn't say anything about this is a count involving use of a gun in relationship to a crime of violence that colloquy took place at the at the time that the defendant pleaded you know i'm trying to get as the and in fact the written judge usually not with a written judgment doesn't control what was said orally right and the problem is is that the judge didn't specify what sort of nine twenty four c count this w although at the time of the plea the judge allowed the defense counsel to explain the nature of the crying the prosecutor concurred and the judge never said oh no no it's something else so connection with drug trafficking offense and admits all the elements of the drug trafficking conspiracy you could if the plea agreement spoke with one voice and in fact i the case in numbered paragraph true it specifically refers to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence says nothing at all about drug trafficking then on the very next page of the plea agreement which includes the drug trafficking as well as the crime of violence so if this were a simple case with a plea agreement spoke with one voice we would have a different case but this is a plea agreement that is really sort of shifting around it's then page appendix page eighty five the prosecutor at the very end of that page says the defendant acknowledges that in the context of the conspiracy which you count one of the indictment you remember that's the the two firearms recovered from the the vehicle so we've we've got all sorts of conflicting signals that are are given here and it's no wonder that when it comes time for the judge to enter the the written judgment he enters that for use of a gun in relationship to a crime of of the ice we've got we've got here and i guess i understand twenty to fifty five to be essentially an equitable remedy right well i don't think well if you go back far enough you wouldn't call it an equitable remedy corpuses is sort of outside the division of law originally correct in the criminal case you correct that is correct so and i i guess i'm looking for the injustice that you and your client see here given all of the facts that w admitted given the extraordinarily light sentence on the conspiracy charge  what what's what's crying out for a remedy here well if it's not good enough that someone serving in a legal sense i don't know what to tell your other that's that's what it comes down to yet legally in what sense because he had there is no doubt that he admitted facts that add up to a drug trafficking conspiracy correct and arctic part of the plea agreement and he he and his colleagues got guns  together if any of these issues had been raised in the original criminal case the government could have fixed the problems in a heartbeat right i don't know because i don't know the dynamics of the plea agreement and the negotiation towards towards that you know can i make this quick an elegy had he gone to a jury trial and he had let's say the evidence was clear and unequivocal and convincing everyone in the jury that come back with a special verdict saying we find him guilty of using a gun place and shipped to a crime of violence and not guilty as to drug trafficking you might say well where's the justice in that that sentence i don't see any unfairness in the allowing him to challenge the unfairness of that he so that you would see an unfairness in allowing the district judge to revisit the sentence on the conspiracy church correct you know when this was argued in in the district court and it all sort of played out in a strange way because the government never even raise this issue to further the litigation i have first since i wasn't prepared for the judge's quest was a little  but after reviewing the law i would have to agree that if you were to read reverse in this case and send it back to recess and the judge would have the authority to recalibrate his sentence on the on the conspiracy has the united states morning starting from the end rather than the beginning if the court is absolutely correct that were the court to grant relief in this case the district court would have the authority to re calibrate the sentence and it is every indication was given during the passage that the judge can you just read that the court would indeed recalibrate and would presumably impose the exact same  sentence so as a practical matter that goes to the question of injustice here but in addition with respect to the count of which the defendant was actually convicted based on a guilty plea the the judgment here says he is convicted of a violation of eighteen u s c nine twenty four c line it does not distinguish between a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime other than it uses that kind of the generic terminology possession of a firearm is further into the crime of violence which we can see is pretty much all that and that line and it is something that  i'm sure you've read it right up transcripts to know that it is common thing for people to shorten that one statutory provision and just use the first part of it and i think that that is definitely something that was happening at least some of the time in the passages that counsel was reading from the record of the police the distinction was not made at the time of sentencing and with respect to the guilty plea on page and the defendant most you know specifically admitted to having done both things both in terms of the fact that a passage leads off with an admission that the defendant used and carried a firearm during and in relation to both a crime of violence or an address for a traffic crime and with respect to the specific facts that were edited during the plea judge hamilton is  the plea agreement makes that crystal clear and of course the law is that the the question here is out what he was convicted of but rather what he what facts he pled guilty to to a crime of violence that was committed by the defendant doesn't have to be convicted and so on that on that basis alone the defendant's argument just doesn't hold water as a district court correctly ho w given that defendants ninety twenty four c confession properly rested on his use of a gun during the commission of the drug trafficking in france obviously johnson has no application here because of drug trafficking offense was clearly not implicated in any way by the johnson decision and the court should decide this case on this basis if there are any further questions or if there are there are none which is