thank you others may please the court this is a single issue and mr campbell wishes to raise of this court his contention that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted now i stand here and say he has a heavy burden on this particularly in view of his flight that occurred here and the possible prejudice to which the government notes if he were to be retried at this point what i will argue on his district court not to inform him during his plea that he was entitle to the appointment of assigned counsel at the stage at which he was he had retained counsel at that time the judge said you may go to trial with your retained counsel but do not say it now he alleges certain things in his motion that pertain to this issue about assignment of counsel and that is he he alleged that he has retained attorney said to him you have to pay me more money if we're going to trial otherwise go to plead guilty the alleged that  he was promised probation and he was he said that he was told he had to say yes during the proceedings these things of course i can't argue with this point that is true they are allegations at this point of of him what i do say is that they when they met the threshold of the requirement of an evidentiary hearing on the issue and you get an embedded hearing unless it's the what's raised is inherently incredible it contradicts the record words merely from luser and i submit that these allegations met that threshold if they were determined to be true and all but only an evidentiary hearing would have been able to determine that then they were sentenced to the ten year mandatory minimum and in this case he was still subject to the possibility of safety valve or relief if he was going to be truthful with the government the government is alleging it's brief and said that he already went through a proper session to determine he had not been truthful but that he had an offer to again come to the government and if you go swimming presumably if he was truthful he would have had safety valve relief and the possibility of a sentence of one hundred ten years so he says yes i understand that i must be sentenced to a ten year mandatory minimum i submit that answer indicates particularly in light of this is an illiterate may fourth grade education indicates a descent title meant document doctrine yes as an independent ground for denying his motion to withdraw his plea made seven years after he fleet and then was apprehended and in extradited do you agree that we review that judgment on abuse of discretion standard i do and it is part of what i alluded to in the various outset of my argument that he has a heavy burden what what makes it an abuse of describe sion for the district court on this record have to have relied on that ground well what i would say is the factors that underlie the fugitive distance item doctrine i would say are basically equitable and good equitable considerations are the number one somebody who flees from justice the the factor that there is a penalty there that's one and the second is a main one is  yes so what i would say and this is what it's a heavy burden but and making the argument for him that there are counterbalancing factors to ask the court to weigh here of what of those factors for the government but factors of  here and i make major arguments and make arguments in the brief about the effect of his illiteracy and extremely low level of education on his ability to comprehend and  that he panicked and the things that he said indicating that he said he was illiterate he lacked understanding that those are i would say things we're in this instance  but also just to address a point made by opposing counsel the defendant while he claimed the government believed that he may be illiterate that's not first of all foregone conclusion that was just an understanding that he may be illiterate and my pointing it out to the court the district court made every possible adjustment and how she could proceed with the allocution to make sure that he did understand what was happening and i think not mentioning that as part of that was something that should have been raised and i do can see those error but it was harmless especially here because as your honor pointed out first that the  sitting at every stage of this with was with a was with appointed counsel and also the agent had raised with him right after his arrest that he could have appointed counsel so he had heard several times that he could have appointed counsel and when he was being elocute as to whether he was satisfied with his counsel he that would have been a perfect opportunity but of course you know rule eleven requires that any court personally advise the defendant of certain things and