our view invalid waiver mr nelson's waiver was not knowing voluntary because he did not understand the fundamental nature of the violation against him and because he did not understand the procedural protections afforded to him and that he was in the consequences of giving those up as to the nature of the violation the proceedings started a bit of confusion because the state court charges that underlie the revocation district court hears and makes an attempt to correct and i agree that there was an attempt made we think the attempt to correct it was insufficient and isn't sufficient for two reasons one is is to the time he said it the st time early in and he said i believe just in violation just because i was arrested the conduct doesn't matter now his counsel took a break came back on the record and asked him questions but the questions went in a bit of a different direction and nobody including the court or his attorney addressed the point about his misunderstanding of the bottle when he says it again at this point in time the district judge court had already accepted the waiver and found a violation and this was during sentencing and so when he said it again first of all that he sort of confirms that that misunderstanding persisted throughout the hearing and it's almost like an agreement the agreement was made with the one i'm going to explain to you what the procedures are what the protections are that your for did and what the consequence of waiver are and then we would kind of setback because you've already offered your waiver to me and i've already accepted it you need to talk to your lawyer you need to think about whether or not that waiver still something you want to offer to me but that didn't happen and i think the nd point on that is the sufficiency of the correction we think it was presumed innocent you'd have these procedural protections you could put on evidence on your own behalf you could cross examine change the government's witnesses and challenge them and so that's a fundamental misunderstanding of up and there's nothing in the record and i don't think the government seriously contends that there was that he understood those protections or that they were adequately explained to him  again that omission is important because if he believed a violation is just a fact in a rest then putting out his own evidence or cross examining the government's witnesses is in sound respects meaningless he understood that the government had to lose the underlying charges by a preponderance that he was presumed innocent in the protections of putting on evidence to defend himself and cross examine the government's witnesses which he seemed to intend to want to do in the state court proceedings would have been that much more meaningful even assume he would have remembered what was told him two years earlier let alone then to take the pieces and put them together to understand it to know how they would apply in this new proceeding in twenty eight review but the remedy is reversed and remanded nd finally whether or not plain error should apply in the st instance we took a close look at the issue from from our perspective it seems to be exchange for player leniency that they didn't pay out but the decision in place it was snowing voluntary i'd like to jump on a point that you made judge barrett that defendant suggestion that he somehow hearing to correct potential misimpressions or errors during that scene here and i think any other rule would not make any sense right of course the district court remains free to correct those misimpressions as they arise or as the district court comes to correct misimpressions and reaffirm to their own minds that the proceedings in front of them are as a matter of substance i think that standing alone to judge their examination of what's acceptable occasion to consider a proceeding under rule three if you point one it has taken pains to distinguish those proceedings from sentencings from guilty pleas from criminal trials this court has said that revocation proceedings are much less formal than a criminal trial they're the functional equivalent of full rule of macaque way of course judgement wasn't required to do that but it informs the calculus here i don't think i could put it better than defendant in his reply brief i'm quoting from page thirty four of the reply judgment two thousand and sixteen walked mr nelson through each procedural protection engaging mr nelson along the way of course he did and that should inform the court's assessment of whether or not just arrows admonition in correction i'd also like to make a more general point that on officer within seventy two hours that's all that those documents say about at rest standing alone in contrast both those documents explain that if he commits a new law violation that's a person a violation of the terms of a supervised release and we're not just relying on mr nelson's understanding of those documents in the record judge men two thousand and sixteen again explicitly and numerate those conditions to the defending and he acknowledged understanding of the same i'd also like to make a general point on upon receipt of arguments in support of the join the recommended disposition and his reply brief moment today before your honor is that he's abandoning that rd argument and i suggest that's with good reason and everything we cited authority that explains that we are not required and by we i mean the government is not required to do anything other than explain that we support our joining recommended disposition the nd louison salazar for the proposition that so long as the government sticks to that joint recommendation we're also pretty common sense of factors but intervening period of time between a guilty plea to a subset of offense and sentencing that typically doesn't take place and revocation hearing or sensing immediately follows the waiver or the adjudication violation i think this record explains that that the extent you decide to lock horns with it pretty widely over reads a lot a lot of predates the decisions in the nd th and th circuits that we cite and i think they have the better of the argument i'd also like to talk about two decisions that we cited in support of the proposition that this court consideration of judgments procedural colloquy defendants suggest that it's too far out of time for us to consider as we assess his waiver in twenty i think that's wrong revocation context where in the st circuit felt comfortable inferring that a defendant was proceeding in a knowing involuntary way based on his prior experience at a revocation hearing this defendant was in the same procedural posture he was facing  much thank you very much counsel this group nor we appreciate your willingness to accept the appointment and your assistance to a court order case was taken under advi