and investigating as a conscious confidential informant he entered a plea for his role which if you're in a prison term that he understood to be about eighteen months or about six years based on  in a two additional points to his criminal offense level charges offense level and was based on confusion over mr davis's service record and his military discharges if mr davis record that we have in the facts that he's asserted have clearly indicated that both up until sentencing and after the sentence was imposed until that point he was never aware that he could receive a s and in advance of the police aren't in advance of entering the plea and again i think that goes to the waiver which would which we've just discuss and in fact following the sentence mr davis specifically requested a direct appeal be filed and his counsel just either we have it's not clear what happened but his counsel never filed a notice of appeal on the case i agree that that the waiver is very specific and bron and covering both his appellate in collateral rights as to what mr davis was made aware of by his counsel during the plea process i think it's clear that the for the record in fact show that he didn't understand that he's not a lawyer and his lawyers duty was to advise him of what he was waiving and i believe the record in the case that that wasn't done here obstruction which the government also supported at sentencing compels consideration of the interests of justice in this case but more specifically as to the issues raised by the court  as a result of the supreme court decision and and elaine mr davis in motion and as a concluding as a pen effective assistant claims i should be considered timely but the line is not retroactive anclote collateral review right that this court has said that very recently and we agree that generally that's what this court holding is car over here where councils we think again has a system and effective assistance of counsel effects mr davis position with respect to the the principle identified in elaine is that the crime the crime financial punishment and other should be transparency between the crime and the punishment and the fascists that increase the punishment from that the floor because of the findings of the p c r and its inclusion of two additional points that amount increased at least thirteen years because of his criminal history that was included which removed the ability to reduce the  ok thank you based on its continued cooperation for a reduction to sixty six percent of the land or sixty six percent of the stache or a mandatory minimum of ten years whichever was higher government did that in return for these undertakings by the government the defendant pleaded guilty in wages right to appeal and waived his right to bring in twenty to fifty five motions that waiver should be in force to attack the waiver is not barred by the waiver perhaps you perhaps and perhaps he wants to get out of that that cooperation deal and go back to the status quo and we are respecting a guideline range timely on its own right and that's to the court asked that the parties to address that question is order granting a certificate of appeal ability you know and as we've pointed out at our brief every circuit to have addressed this issue of weather claims of twenty to fifty five for the timely use address a claim by claim basis or on on the theory that one timely minimum did not was not increased by anything the district court did at sentencing even if he did have such a claim every other claim including the claim his attorney didn't file a notice of appeal or his  other other bit there other factual claims made by the defendant that i could address but for example the claim that he did not lie about his discharge from the army the probation officer in the p s r reported the report was not said that the defendant was asked whether he had received a dishonorable discharge and thus the defendant's claim no i didn't receive a dishonorable shoot discharge was not technically falls the p s r stated that the defendant reported to the probation officer in the company of his attorney that he had in fact received an honorable discharge am as to the claim by claim position we agree that the general rule of thumb of the search for every sort of it's address that and the cases here is that individual claims generally are claimed by claim however i think that it has been applied because it makes sense for old unrelated and baseless claims but here we believe that has been affected as this counsel claim is directly related and  amount of time that's been discussed with him week we've definitely discuss that issue with them but just to clarify here we think the best remedy would be and force one of the cli in line with its expectations and  minimum removing the