wasn't the the three judges i mean someone helps was talking but you can even proceed of course now here on i'm sorry about that here i don't think there's any real debate as to whether the rule was followed it was not the judge did not ask mr balli whether its decision to plead guilty had been the result of any threats coersion force it cetera he did ask some generalized questions to counsel but this court has previously determined in powell that and the rule obviously stayed on its base and then the questions can be addressed accounts olding must be addressed to the defendant personally  and mr family's substantial rights were affected here because the evidence shows overwhelmingly that this case would have gone to trial he plead to place literally on the morning of trial everybody expected it to go to trial and it came as a surprise could you please this is such credit could you please clarify something for me when your client st attempted to withdraw i didn't see how the district court was directly alerted to the issue that he later mentioned as having decided to create guilty have because he was threatened that his father and daughter were going to be charged as well as someone who he later identified as a thomas kubrick had said that this is after a lot of back and forth still about his plea the voluntar and i don't think the government contester that you can contest look at the record that the district court did not engage your client directly with the question whether his plea was prompted by any threats or any coercion but but the record here seems a less than compelling about that he would have in fact not pleaded guilty were it not for such threats if such threats were indeed into mind st of all it is clear i believe the record does make clear enough that my client had been asking tourney to make a motion to me i understand your honor and i certainly agree with your characterization with respect to the threat it undoubtedly in my view could come from either the government directly or from somebody nominally on the defendant side i don't think that makes a difference with respect to the nature of the threat with respect to the more direct procedural question here the we were talking about a  criminal defendant who although he obviously was represented by counsel it would it's just as obvious that at that point is relationship with is attorney had broken down completely council did not want to make the motion you around or the defendant was doing only good the judge essentially cut him off my client as right at the outset of the plea the sentencing proceeding i need a new attorney i want to make a motion to withdraw my plea and the judge shut him down and told him look we drag this out long enough and for all intents and purposes said i don't want to hear that anymore and what was mr bentley supposed to do at this point he's a proud to be sentenced by this very same judge it's not the time to get in an argument with the court even let the court know that he had not only what he believed to be a valid argument withdraw the p constituted a basis to withdraw the plea so you several times you said it wasn't obvious error i don't believe little eleven requires that the judge specifically ask you know anything specific along those lines but the rule requires that the district judge make a finding that it was voluntary so i'm not a liberal does that yeah i mean look i think the standard nearly two million dollars fraud with respect to the pre colloquy the government doesn't dispute that there was not the verbatim following of will eleven year but mr bailey has not the same hi the scenario that mr bailey posit on feel is that if the judge had asked that question then mr bailey was that he was threatened and the government would have clarified that he was not and then he would have decided to go to trial but that doesn't take into account the person who made the alleged threat which was an investigator for mr bailey own defense team so why does that make a difference greed that it was made and that the government was not responsible there is no evidence that the government was responsible for it but why do you isn't it plausible to say that had he been told look you and the question is was booked to leave voluntarily or was it affected by that so i don't see how the fact that the knowledge about the threat that they could build that came apart from the government to determin honor it doesn't make a difference if it was the government or if it was defense counsel as to whether mr bailey perceived it as a threat and certainly if he felt that he was threatened to the point that he had no choice whether to make the then that could impact the district court's determination as to whether the plea was voluntary but here what mr bailey says later at sentencing is i decided to plead guilty because i thought if i went to trial that my family members would be charged but the way the government interpreted that sentence was that that he had received a threat thing he would be punished with these additional charges if  went to trial and clarifies the government didn't make the direct if at the plea allocution had said yes i had been threatened then the district court would have inquired further about what that was to determine whether or not it was a voluntary plea if it came to light that this was something that he had heard from his own defense team then he would have should have been made to understand that charges don't come from the defense team and that perhaps what was being communicated to him was that if he went to trial where more evidence was developed there was a risk that his family members could be charged and in fact that was a risk the pre sentence investigation report shows that his family members were involved in one way or another with this s if his the his consideration for why he wanted to plead guilty or not was based on whether or not his family members might be charged that risk would still be there and so there's no even if it was clarified for him no you haven't been threatened that clarification wouldn't have changed his analysis of whether or not it was in his best interest to plead the way that is why it hasn't been shown that there's a reasonable probability that he wouldn't have pled even if the judge had asked and there were no real grounds identified for for wanting to withdraw the plea the letter that defense counsel the bennett to the district court just said his client had asked him to withdraw the plea and then he says view reviewed the entirety of my file and i don't see any basis for a withdrawal except maybe theoretically you know effective assistance of counsel and then when mr baillie is given an opportunity to address his requests fro m the district court mr bailey turns immediately to wanting to an adjournment and a new attorney and he doesn't identify any grounds for withdrawing his plea so there was certainly not any fair or just reason presented to the district court that would allow it to grant the motion to withdraw and there was no abuse in denying that finally with respect to mr baillie's sentence it should be affirmed as both procedur and substantively reasonable for the reasons that are outlined in the government's brief both of the enhanced ments that were applied were properly applied and the district court had no obligation to compare mr bailey sentence to those received by his coconspirators and even if he had it would have been appropriate for mr bailey to receive a longer sentence given he was responsible for such a greater amount of the last and finally with respect to the substance of the sentence this was a within guidelines sentence and  neither before the district court or on appeal has any compelling reason been presented about why the district court should have varied outside of the guidelines if there are no other questions the government thanks the court thank you will hear the sorry i forgot on your myself just going back to the sentencing proceeding again i just don't believe it's reasonable to expect in a circumstance file a motion to withdraw the plea one minute what do you make of the government's argument that if this had been said what would have been poll to think that he wouldn't have pled guilty precisely for the reasons he did plead guilty if he did want to protect him from that means what will your honor that unfortunately does throw us somewhat into the world of current events  with another highly publicized case and people look at that type of print differently we all know if i can speak for everybody i tend to take the euphemistic well he even received that on he was ready to go to trial he had to defend it with a viable one or the other to lead defendants were apparently the masterminds of this and i as i understand it were going to testify against  maybe they would not have been credible he had a shot of winning this case and he clearly wanted to go to trial even at the group leak out it's evident that you know there was a think i've made my green clear thank you thank you both the court will reserve decision we have one