in light of new facts into into law and more specifically whether those that new information presented a quote error and just reason to withdraw the plea under this court's precedent now legally the standard is not supposed to be particularly demanding not supposed to be tremendously high hurdle to demonstrate a fair and just reason the court's precedent has described it as think it does collapse in two different ways of st is whether it was involuntary and one of the main reasons that was put forward to withdraw the plea was involuntary miss and specifically the threat or the prospect of a mandatory life sentence and the court's indications or musings about the merits of the motions the very much wanted to run so involuntary in this is one such collapse was knowingly and intelligently made so i would submit that although that's very similar to involuntary ness there is also a component when knowing intelligence as to whether the defendant had the benefit of all the information that there it doesn't have it's not simply involuntary there's also kind of not knowing on into it which i think we also meet with some of the additional a correct that's correct so we have to put it differently and i hope i'm not quibbling when i say this if it's if it is if one of those things is missing it's either involuntary or not knowing and  so why wasn't it knowing involuntary that district court went through you know all of the objections and detailed you know why he thought in the record they were unsubstantiated why was he wrong well i think the  mmediately on the heels of that that the court the district or than pitts and starts talking once again and not for the st time about mandatory life sentence in the court's view the defendant was facing is because that very day after court the defendant and his attorney at the time got down and consummated the written plea agreement and then the very next day after that is when i think it and that's really i think where the rubber meets the road because we don't need to speculate on the district court's motivations and talking about the merits of the motion or in talking about the mandatory life but but more to the point once it became clear and the government doesn't and you can't dispute this once it became clear that that's certainly not the law anymore the st step in the miserables is not facing was not describing the mandatory life sentence and then the immediate change plea there after that those things cast doubt on the bell voluntary or give rise to a showing at the we can volunteer we could kind of getting over that involuntary well i think maybe there's a maybe there's a different interpretations of the manner in which he was shocked i don't i took it to mean not that he was surprised at all my goodness i'm facing life but that it was shocking that  i'm being it was being beaten over the head with it and it was the shocker well for some well that's true but i think also d married up with what his perception was a prejudging of good morning your honour's and they have at least the court then balding for the united states as your honour's just honed in on the question before this court is whether defend his decision to plead guilty was knowing and voluntary and it was he was advised by two attorneys to meet met and discuss the case on several occasions mr cordell multiple replete hearings to discuss that piece in detail with the defendant including the and if it were if it were to be outside of that waiver then yes you could raise that and defendant made a voluntary decision to accept a plea agreement that provided him with substantial benefits he signed that agreements he certified that he understood the agreement with his attorney not render a voluntary plea in not to i want to know what kind of sense that i think it's important to give some sort of value to agreements pleas that are entered at the time of you know how long should we leave the door open for any sort of change i think brady the supreme court has said very clearly that the decision to plead guilty is based on what is known at the time i mean if subsequent changes or a miscalculation of the government strength or the government's case or those sorts of factors come into play that's not enough to validate the particular factor on or that it would apply because he was pre sentencing or in this case however again the laws is clear that it's not you do not need to be able to foresee changes in a lot to make it a knowing voluntary  we discussed and also impeachment evidence under the rule he's case do not make a voluntary we involuntary so focusing on that you now look at the standard of her view well this court is looking at the knowing and voluntary from  clearly supports the government here that this was a voluntary waiver and isn't forcible but your honor judge resign your of dissent in that case i think hones in on some questions and some issues but if you look at the facts of this case those  not of a concern that would require you to go against jarana most majority opinion i think what happened here is that we don't have a situation where the defendant is making an refuted assertions of  unknowing or the factual assertions that he claims made his plea involuntary rather you have a very developed record including declarations by his two attorneys and factual findings by the court that say that no this was a voluntary plea in his self serving after the fact statements do not override his under oath statements at the change of plea supporting the voluntariness and determination so therefore we've got a case where we got a valid waiver the record is clear that it was fully aware of the consequences of his plea of the facts against it which was asserted with regard to this reason given by defense counsel that he wanted to have is his suppression motions her up he was voluntarily and knowingly entering into the plea agreement in addition to the numerous i think defense counsel makes a lot of a lot out of the timeline here but if you look at the amount of time this district court  spent going over the case with defendant i mean there are three hearings before the change of plea leading to lengthy hearings discussing the case in detail i think fully informing the defendant of the consequences of of waiver was no involuntary i think that precludes the argument that the motion of withdrawal should be revisited on just voluntariness because i think you've already made that determination in saying that the waiver was in forcible as to motions were discussed and then after defendant another defendant came along who had not been apprehended yet she filed suppression motions as to two of the exact same incidents on pretty much the same grounds that a court had denied those motions  about impeachment evidence as related to a trial right your honor not something i defended as a child to know as to all of you know at the time of the police so again subsequent impeachment evidence even if it applied to more i think it would  well you're not i think it was very clear that this had to do with impeachment evidence and the government's obligation under reid's attaches to trial there and i think the the record shows the reason for that delay was the r one hundred and five the government explains the purpose is you know the question that i don't think the government was able to satisfactorily answer with the argument that i think the government was conflating is that knowing is not the same thing as all and here the government wants to say that the figured into the calculation in deciding whether or not we get to really could have driven a better bargain with that information could he have lots of thought why it's about whether or not he wanted to give up those motions i think that's the