oral understanding you got nevertheless in spite of the split flop in the district court maintains that it never agreed or promised and any in any way whatsoever to reward appellants continued cooperation  plea and the schedule sentencing belies this contention brown admitted jury of the evidence rehearing on the motion to withdraw or to revoke the plea which was granted by the district court before i entered the picture motion for his that is less than the minimum mandatory penalty or a downward departure that statement to him makes absolutely no sense similarly this to robinson representing the government on this appeal admitted that robinson agreed to look into it and to get back to him now if indeed as the government maintains there was no possibility under any circumstances of mr blair was heaving any further benefit that that's statement makes absolutely no sense and when challenged on that mr robinson couldn't come up with an answer which really made in the sense i mean is that sort of was something along the lines of well i wanted to performed because they didn't notice at the prior convention well the whole question is was that the contract of course the district court court found that it was although noting that and all of her experience she had never seen case like this where the defendant is given a friend and vetted and then expected to continue to cooperate in order to earn what the government has already given him and cannot take away that it's ridiculous and my point that the agreement the oral agreement of the parties had to encompass more than that based upon the statements made to helen and his counsel by the government agents including mr robinson because otherwise it makes the findings of the district court that there was no ancillary oral agreement to your client's benefit that to me comes in the clear that's a fact finding by the district court based on the record well i think that it is the next  of fact and law not to find out that there was no agreement that's the first mission where there is no agreement then you might look at what's the conclusion from that well i think that would be the conclusion if there was an agreement but the presence or absence of an agreement to me is an issue  clear error in that the district court did not adequately take into account the representation is made to appellant and his counsel during the period of time after the plea and prior to sentencing  benefit which was going to be which was in the process of being heard now if in fact that was not the case well then you look at the flip side of this the government through its agents deceived both the pilot and his counsel and i don't think that that went no matter how beneficial it was good and possibly result in any greater benefit to the to the fence when they were giving him conflicting signals all along as to that particular for encouraging this additional cooperation he didn't have to do anything he didn't have to do anything you're right well the indication from asian brown was  sham your honor it was a situation in which the he was they made a determination to give you the benefit upfront and we hope we get something in return and in return we don't disagree with the two areas that were describ think and that was the negotiated previously condition that they entered into what's part and parcel the plea agreement is that there is no there is no term which requires the government to bring a motion for  about future cooperation so now they brown and hall both learning impression that if he does something for the government is going to give him some benefit will will the reverse for the inside in the normal circumstance the government wait until somebody cooperated fully and then makes a determination that wasn't the case here but there was a benefit afforded the descendant there was of an effect that's true and i think that after that after that vacating the plea which i don't think he does it doesn't address it at all but in this particular case i agree with the court in the best of all possible worlds it should have been a term which was up front and it should have been a term in which the government said you'll get no additional substantial assistance you receive your full benefit we're hoping for the best that would have been good but it's not enforceable term it didn't amount to anything and therefore i don't know that it necessarily obligates the government to bring the fi of two thousand and one to look at the times they were meeting when it could have even been a discussion that was the in march but there's no allegation that there was any discussion certainly some like that would have had to have been put into the police remit if it was something that the parties had agreed to college so opening greased exact quote is what the government wants to rest its case upon is that there was an agreement with mr lanier we scrupulously abide by the terms of that agreement and to the extent that the court finds that there was bad faith on the part of the government i do not want to predicate my argument of argument upon wade and yet that's the first argument in their power and their response to a brief and makes no difference because we need is only operative where there is no impingement upon a constitutional right