sixth amendment i was appointed to represent mr allen in february of two thousand and fourteen in the district court judge while pratt but mr allen had been under indictment since september of two thousand  and the chronology very briefly is that he was in the jefferson county kentucky jail which is a little kentucky right across the river from jeffersonville indiana and new albany indiana which are other jurisdictions that play into this he had been arrested on burglary and robbery charges in the commonwealth of kentucky and was sitting in the jefferson county jail he'd been under investigation by the united states attorney's office at that point they filed an indictment in september two thousand and ten he was served that indictment in the jefferson county jail but he was never brought to court there was a superseding indictment december of two thousand and ten he was also serve detention but but in the district court proceedings are held with his name on the docket and you if you review the docket of all the docket or mr allen there are various docket entries there noted in the brief there was a pretrial held maybe twenty six seven five believe fall two thousand and eleven which shows his name is being a participant that never happened and also shows an individual named joseph cousins as being a know you all of seen that you're familiar with that length of delay was forty months so that triggers further inquiry reason for delay and the blame on the government obviously alan childers quite a bit of the reason for delay because he got arrested in other jurisdictions but the government also knew where he was and could have brought him before the court he did not assert a speedy trial rights the way that he should have over the course of that rights but the point is by the time i got the case there wasn't anything i could do for him compared to what i could have done for him if i had been appointed back in september of two thousand and ten which goes to the fourth  prejudice to the defendant there is there's three prongs of that one is to prevent pretrial detention obviously we couldn't do that he was going to be detained too as to minimize anxiety on part of the defendant mr allen has a record he was not a being in jail i can't tell you that either but the third thing is the impairment of defense and it goes to the it goes it goes to reevaluating what defending a federal case is all about you know the idea that every federal case that i get i'm going to do everything i can to get ready for trial from the get go just ignore what a good federal criminal defense attorney ought to be doing which is knocking on the i call the cruiser hawg theory of justice which is the first dog to the trough it's the choice a slot no matter what size the hawg and that's what happened here jesse bottoms who was the main defendant along with a guy named nelson were the first two people that got their foot in the door and they both were able to work out deals fairly readily and fairly quickly where nelson got one hundred twenty months he was the supplier of cocaine from actually from somewhere around here in chicago and that bottoms would come up and get it along with a couple other people take it down to southern indiana and then he would distribute it to three or four people including al so alan was the third prong of the distribution and there were two out of twenty defendants four of them got probation three of them received sentences under twelve months of the deals that were available in this case having practiced in the southern district for over since before the guidelines the deals that were available in this case were were amaz proceeding but that proceeding wasn't done wasn't finished until may of twelve he was sentenced may of twelve but all it would have taken is me he could've if if you let him out the door of the jefferson county jail he could have walked to the district court in new albany in about an hour and they could have brought him over the government brings people on temporary custody all the time for things like testify you know the idea that there had to be a writ and that he had to transfer jurisdictions and i am working with two different marshals service offices one kentucky one yet no you know because he was it would have been the southern district marshals so you know a fifteen minute hearing where he had been appointed counsel and then counsel could have worked together to work out some sort of package deal if that's what you want to call it the last the a bill b to have the sentences run concurrent as opposed to consecutive because of the timing he ended up representing himself to a fault in that he filed a may please a court brian writes for the government i would like to focus on the lack of prejudice here alan's prejudiced argument under parker the window fails for three main reasons one it was caused by his own criminality to his arguments really go to the passage of time as opposed to the impairment of the defense function and three they fail on their own merits i would like to focus on that quickly the argument about the benefits that could have been received well that this report found that he already received a greatly beneficial plea deal the government offered him a plea deal as if he would have been the first kwaku operator so i don't think there's any actual prejudice on that point the reason alan sentence with worse as a district court noted was because his criminal history was so egregious including here we have a situation where when he was out on work release in indiana he's committee he's a scaping from back meeting robbery he's shooting someone in kentucky while also undergoing this conspiracy to deal and cocaine as to the concurren sentences i would point this court to the sentencing transcript on pages forty forty two and fifty six to fifty eight with the distro court rejected that the district court said even if i had the ability to sentence concurrently at the time i would not do so because i think we were already at the bottom level of where a sentence would have been reason one hundred twenty months the district court would have been uncomfortable on an essentially rejected that is being a possibility or something that she would have considered just and then moving on to the other the second and third parker be know factors i think alan is admitted here that a big reason for the delay was his own criminality this is a classic case of competing jurisdictions with competing claims yet criminal cases in indiana kentucky and in federal court  right despite while he was in kentucky prison a violent pro se filing but attain or to get indiana so we knew he had the capability the knowledge to do that and as soon as counsel was appointed he filed  your comment that the plea that was offered to him was in line with the others who pled originally i just want to make sure i understand that no i will the district court said it was greatly beneficial now there was another defendant i got one hundred twenty months and then bottoms got one hundred sixty six six hundred sixty eight months excuse me so he with it so allen was at the top range of that but the district court covered this the reason he was at the top range is because he's a caree just criminal history so that his past put him at the top range of that as opposed to anything anything with the passage of time moreover the government granted him cooperating agreements you get a three level reduction for acceptance responsibility for cooperating even though there is essentially no one to cooperate with so he really already received the benefit of that as if you would have first it was just his criminal history that pushed him up to the hundred twenty months and even at that the district court thought that was at the very low threshold of what would have been reasonable i think if the government would have came with much less and one twenty months to the district were rejected so i don't think the sentence really can show any sort of   i don't exactly know the timing when the second person bottoms and i played it pretty quickly but again this is alan received a sense within the top range of the criminals that were and alan was the son in law i understand you are going to respect that you want to expand that that there are branch but i just want to see how this case might be won i guess judge i think judge walton pratt made those those observations and yes my client was a career offender i can't argue that in the end we worked out a decent result for him but what i don't know what