risking good morning judge upon judge county and judge sykes i'm here on behalf of misandry maguire and we have two issues to prevent present to the court today the first is whether the district court of used his discretion when he refused to grant ms the choir's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty and the second is whether she was prevented from bringing this appeal by the waiver of appellate rights that was included in her plea agreement and it is our position that the first issue takes care of the second and i i will start there first about ms mcguire was a firefighter and she had been so for twenty years was she how would you go to retire yes she was she had she didn't have an age limitations so she could have retired before she pled right know i think that she's eligible to retire but the timing was such that she wasn't eligible to retire until recently after is that what's at the heart of this case that a recognition to save the pension was to put off the play at the heart of the case yes the heart of the case was that she didn't understand fully the consequences of and for her employment and her pension and generally lose your pension right i mean bottom line the bottom line was that and i think that she did not fully under come to terms with us until after that plea colloquy and once she did come to terms with that and realized that that what was going to happen nature of the plea colloquy eleven d one provides that you can take a plea back at any time before the police accept it for any reason or no one is going to want when did you become counsel after she only thing that there was confusion about at the end of the plea colloquy or the plea hearing itself was not whether the plea was accepted that whether the adjudication of guilt would be entered as of that date because of this issue of her claimant pending sentencing but the court clearly said all right her guilty pleas accepted but i do with hold adjudication of guilt into their sentencing if a sickly protects your right yes and then when lantus rightly addressed her that's not the please well the plate that the problem with parsing the plea from the adjudication of guilt from the sentencing from the plea agreement is that if you say the plea there's never going to be a circumstance under you guilty and i'm not going to make any decision about the terms of your agreement so there was virtually nothing that he did at that moment other than acknowledge that she was offering to plead guilty and well he accepted her however after that supreme court supreme court's decision in p d f versus kentucky where they found that deportation which had for for years been looked at as a collateral consequences something that has to be  putting an extra burden of information on an attorney would be to have a more liberal interpretation of the rules governing much as to withdraw pleas so that in particular cases a judge could make the discretionary decision other whether this is this merits as was serious or not right and i would suggest in the particular circumstances of this case that the collateral consequences to what has been considered consequence to ms maguire was as important and perhaps more important then deportation in some cases because what you're talking about is is the core of a person's ability not only to support themselves in the present but to obtain the property rights interest in their pension and they have a accrued over twenty years time working especially in a case like this pond where the the charged offense had nothing to do with her her job her work performance or anything else it was something completely separate and apart so it was not a case in which she had embezzled from employer or done something else that affected her her job and so in that particular situation like this where she needed to have that information and where where the court has always looked at collateral consequences something that's not immediate and direct and in this particular case the consequences to m mcguire is immediate and direct at the moment her guilty binding is final she loses her job you enter so i think that takes it out of the realm of the typical collateral consequence civil civil proceedings or money damages or things of that age and the underlying policy of trying to narrowly restrict motions to withdraw  have people treat these situations seriously and not on a lark and decide that they have made the wrong decision and i would suggest in this case that's not what not what happens in most of the cases that this court has seen  people are complaining about what happens to them at sentencing i see my my time is up may finish my know you're a republican you really have a church ok thank you ms maguire is not complaining about something that happened after the fact in fact the better the benefit of her plea agreement is a very good one and she's actually taking a serious risk by saying that she wants to withdraw her plea and proceed to trial because she received a sentence of probation and by going to trial she would face a possibility of prison time if she lost and that shows that this is not an ill considered or women her part it's that her employment and her pension are that serious to her that once she understood the complete impact of what she did she ask the court to allow her to change direction it to risk that prison time in order to try and say we didn't have anything to do whether or not she thought she was guilty well i would suggest that it also had to do with that judge and that came out in the sentencing colloquy where she told the judge she didn't know understand why she was there that she she wasn't a felon that she was a firefighter and that she did you want to withdraw the plea i don't want to get into defense strategy but you want to withdraw the plea and at least at that time and maybe reconsider it down the road  did was the government opposed to the withdrawal of the plea did you or did you seek to get government acquiescence with the possibility that it would just frankly she'd be in a different withdraw the plea and i'm not suggesting government was under any obligation to do anything other than oppose your way or why should want to withdraw the plague i was not the trial counsel in this case i got involved for the first time with this case approximately two months ago i know at that time that the government filed a motion opposing the withdraw of the plea agreement i i know that with regard to some other defendants that were charged with money laundering counts i believe it least one other had attempted to withdraw her plea and i believe part of the motivation at least according to the government counsel was they believe that if they could get their pleas withdrawn at this late date in the case that the government would not take the expense to actually take them to trial so that years into the case with all the drug defendants pled  and some of them sentenced the risk was where the hope was if we get our plea withdrawn government at this point is just going to not move forward with the trial so that is an alternative explanation as to why  state law with regard to the bench i mean look losing the passion based on a film like that that is not in the record really or i at least attempted to try to research that and i do not know the closest that i could was some state of indiana decisions from the seventy's that discussed how it's have to a police marriage board and and things so it's not a not a statute but it's up to the i could not going to get the governing board of the pension correct i could not find anything that made it seem automatic it dealt into policing openly in the hands of those kinds of boards though there is appeals on some of the state i believe it's a complicated i to appeal the denial of emotional drug guilty plea our second reason is that judge moody was never presented with a position that the police should be rid withdrawn for any reason at all under eleven d the defendant can establish clear error an error in this case on that point beyond that i think the guilty plea colloquy is fairly clear in that judge moody made it clear even at the conclusion of the discussion deferring acceptance of the plea agreement is a completely different matter finally it's the government's position that having accorded by as a defendant of collateral consequences such as potential employment consequences especially when we're dealing with state employees in a police marriage board or firearm airport situation gets very tricky it's not like the immigration context which is much more severe in our position the immigration context is also a clearer advisement rice judge moody will ask a defendant where were you born if it was in america he says so you're a united states citizen if it wasn't he goes through th minutes in response first of all there i am and this is the first time i'm hearing about his alternative explanation that certainly was not the reason for ms mcguire to seek to withdraw her guilty plea she did it as soon as she realized what the impact was going to be on her second of all this court and langer and behrman said that in cases where the the allegation is a constitutional violation that i know link or involuntary plea or ineffect assistance of counsel then the waiver goes out with the plea and so that is the reason why we advocate this appeal should not be dismissed it's hard for me to accept the proposition that she didn't know about these collateral consequences to her employment and pension because there was a great deal of discussion of that at the plea hearing because that was the very basis on which her then counsel together with the government suggested to the court that the judge withhold education of guilt i mean that was the whole reason for it and it was discussed at length and the judge was all confused from why do you want me to do that and so it was all explained on the record and she's sitting right there listening to it that true that that she was listening to that judge but i don't think it was until that point that she fully understood what what was going on and that the fact i think she sort of conflated prison with the loss of her job and didn't realize the fact that she was going to get probation wasn't going to save her job and so i think when she finally realized the entirety of the impact of what she had done then she decided she had to do something about that so i  think you know i understand the court's concern about that and and this is not a case in which we are claiming or requiring that the judge do anything but consider when the particular circumstances stances of this case were