you can see the clock and you're able to see the time hand how much you preserved were familiar with your cases ready the authorit cited in your priests the questions of the record that most material it's not all record so you have limited time feel free to get straight to the heart of your argument if you are not able to address something that's been raised in the briefs your course not waiving anything we're probably going to have some questions being mindful of the clock but if you're answering a question from the court when the time expires please feel free to finish your answer and if you have time for report all oh you won't lose that so long as you're answering a question from the court so we'll start with united states versus a made  another look at the underbelly  to distribute cocaine this quarter again has an opportunity to look at the underbelly of the government's prosecution of individuals through a reverse sting transaction the crux of the argument here surrounds the grand jur indictment which charge the defendant with knowingly and willfully attempting to possess with the genji distributor that is knowingly and willfully attempting to possess an intent to distribute  a dispute arose as to whether it was actually a willful and knowing indictment or whether it was just a knowing indictment and the judge constructively amended the indictment to get rid of the willful instruction and in doing so based upon the hybrid defense here of duress and the lack of  yes but the government in this case did a lap to go ahead and in died under knowingly and willfully and therefore by instructing on just the numbingly arguments the after the fact the government is able to to to omit from the final instructions so it really ends up being a bait and switch that totally changes how the case is tr it's not willful ties in with the duress defense that he didn't intend to do it he had to do it other people who hadn't gone along with this terrorist muslim gang had been beheaded this defendant mr mead had his car firebombed he had to use it if you believe but at one point in the proceedings his wife and his children had been taken and he was threatened basically if you didn't do just deal that's a bad things were going to happen it's it's it's a little bit off on the on the exact flavor of it but it is it is along the same lines it is still a constitutional her say bile asian it's still a construct and when you look at the facts of this case it makes it even even more important it's true the defense started out arguing that it wasn't will fall and that it was happy it happened under duress but the judge went through the derecho analysis and it appeared that the defendant wasn't going to be able to meet the elements so the defense was told  information concerning duress now the government then sat on its hands and didn't make any objection so what while they argue invited error here the government let the defendant testify as to the facts and  that was anough to then bring the willfulness back into being a very important factor in the willful and knowing attempt to possession and then that was the key to the defense testimony and indeed that's what the defendant was really focused on although as it's put it in the briefs the entire defense case was a range as a result the defendant was hesitant he didn't know if he could really get into the the true facts he had been told he couldn't so he held back a little in front of the jury and we believe that if the duress ruling had been different and that that issue  not on appeal but it's its heart of the actual construct of them into the indictment and if that had all come out whether we need to whether it's per se error or whether we need to meet a good cause standard was an improper amendment or constructive amendment to the indictment and then there's the problem with the jury instruction a step point not say willful and intentional or willful and knowing then retained private counsel who never came to meet with him until the day before sentencing didn't even bring the side the defense was at that point filing his own pro se motions  the court agreed to hear bowl the trial counsel and the defendant's pro se motions for a new trial but here the private counsel there been a total breakdown in communication between counsel and his lawyer is lawyer made a very good record as you getting off off the case and unfortunately the defendant was forced to go to sentencing unrepresented and unable to understand the ramifications of the safety valve despite the just for judges extend us gracious offerings for the defendant to accept it when the defendant had already given a three hour statement where he accepted ok i'll give you ms harris again because she was court appointed she knows that she tried it that's one option you can keep your kind attorney or you can go process that those three options because the court had already ruled that there was no good cause for new appointed counsel because the defendant cannot just unilaterally refuse with his attorney he would not entitle a later stage just because he insist that you wanted to counsel a rd attorney he by his conduct waived his right to that counsel and under the gary cases well the judge probably instructed him on the consequences