good morning your honour's may it please the court sean halbert assistant federal public defender on behalf of appellant stephen rad mom i would like to begin by addressing the issue from the court's recent order regarding the question of ye direct the court's attention to the fact that the district court in this is in all candor to this court the district court in this case did indicate at some point during the proceedings that it was likely to impose or in had intended to impose the same term of supervis two reasons the first is the question of whether a case is moot by virtue of the fact that only a supervised release term remains i suggest this question take a categorical approach otherwise this court would be in the position of constantly having to determine  further as the as the supreme court noted in johnson the district court would have the authority to reduce the supervised term of release and what the courts have said is that while the supervised release term cannot be deemed to have begun running while a person was in custody i evidence that it wasn't you didn't have an affidavit from a person who worked at the institution and was in a position to have knowledge just i think an affidavit from a public indicating that it was federally insured i think that the court can draw an inference from the fact that there is no such evidence in the record wait a minute where i remember those coming up in a district court is typically the government puts on somebody from the bank and says it's f d i c insured every now and then they forget and then usually the judge reopens the evidence and let some bring somebody over from the bank testifies but in a plea it's he stipulated to was that was that the parent was federally insured i think it's also significant that the government in its response does not make any profit or that the government believes that the subsidiary was federally insured what it looks to be is that there sentence or do anything to that sentence after he served why why i don't get it if he's got an open room in for research and saying without one of the counts that just got the first time that based on relevant conduct which is broader than additional forty two month sentence on count two the notion that having had its original sentencing intent frustrated it would now lessen the defendant's sentence additionally by imposing a different term a supervisory lead seems the court has indicated what it wants to do here and if this court frustrates its intent with respect to the prison term since it provides relief to the maximum term of supervised release is based on the statutory maximum there is no reason why that five year period of unbundled the convictions and this court's decision to vacate count one did nothing to undermine the legitimacy of the convictions in count two and three according to rule thirty two and here the government agrees that the defendants characterization of that rule in its reply brief that rules divide motions to please just two groups either you making the motion pre sentencing and then you consider under fair and just standard or under the plain reading of rule thirty two at any later time and clean may be set aside only on direct appeal or by motion under twenty two fifty five and this court has held that in the baker case in that thirty two e another set up very clearly in the advisory notes and when commented on by the supreme court and recently in the von case in another context the court recognizes that the finality of judgments is a very important that he was concerned about predate even his original sentencing back in one thousand nine hundred seventy he allegedly had concerns about the f c c insurance and he allegedly had concerns about the evidence of his perjury count if the defendant appeal and again chose not to move to and john's plea on a twenty to thirty five motion and the fact that he's before the district court again simply for resentencing issue should not allow him to have another bite of the apple because he's unhappy with the sentence and this court has recognized that in the king case that just being unhappy with your sentence does not create in that case it was considered under the manifest injustice standard does not can create a manifest injustice and here there's no question that that's what's going on there just then it has always couched his request to withdraw his plea in the alternative in other words if this court or if the district court would have sentenced the defendant to the twelve months on count t or if that doesn't work venn he wants to withdraw his guilty plea and that's exactly what is not supposed to happen so the fact that the so the fact that the defendant did not raise these issues at the proper saying would you say then that's a manifest injustice can only be applying you know twenty to fifty five or no it could be applied on direct appeal and that's happened several times in this court that happens in the baker case and it happened in the king where in that procedural posture the defendant had moved to withdraw while the direct appeal was pending so while the district court did not have proper jurisdiction to consider the motion to withdraw this court did on think that a lot of time thank you very much  on page two hundred sixteen of the excerpts of record in defendant's opposition three sentencing or in the alternative motion to withdraw guilty pleas the defense argued that will thirty two he was a political and that the standard should be  t i also wanted to just briefly address the issue of why mr ravenel did what he did and when he did it he did not believe that he had a basis to withdraw his plea to counts two and three and told the court indicated that it was going to increase the there's any case directly on point for the government