for it right he didn't say don't follow it i don't want you to follow it he he did not repudiation as you suggest he he might have w well when you stand up before before court before you really get into the senate saying you tell the court i didn't negotiate is a pretty strong criticism of  language of the year of the agreement so he he stood up and said i reckon he sees he said i recommend the court that it run distance concurrent with the state senator  hague was because i am bound by the plea agreement that is what i will honor because i never want to be viewed as breaching this plea agreement out actually actually i agree with you on that point is there that he or she is there that they represent the united states of america and that job and the agreement is as you said  and your job is to stand up and say your honor this is our green i agree with the u s the problem though is what judge kelly is pointing out it's sort of so what if he could have it could have been more professional i agree with you but did he really ask the court to sentence your client to a lesser term that's the question will the you know when you look at the cases it is improper for the prosecutor to inject material reservations about you graham it to which the government has committed it when you look at the record here he did he and this is a sweet mr lopez he says on multiple occasions i did negotiate this plea agreement that is injecting a material reservation about the agree willingness in the in the he specifically said the sentence was too low now the guy did not indicate that he was happy with what they were doing but he never said that apologized before we've looked at the transcript the sensing transcript before they even get started he's apologizing for this plea agreement right out of the box is saying i didn't go she ate this is basically throwing his that is correct in fact that's the only discretionary aspect of a citizen provided he accepted a plea agreement and i think that's why that's all the more important for the prosecutor right and he did say that even a day less than the proposed sentence is an insult to the federal sentencing guidelines so the court was not enamored with the deal either but he took it he substantial rights were effective which means that you've got to show there's a reasonable probability that but for this what you're alleging is prosecutorial misconduct the result would have been different but i've read the transcript and this judge hashan it really explained why vehemently explained why he was not going to run those sentences can concurrently  how can you meet that prong of the playing error and that even if weeks after everything you say doesn't you don't you fail on that prong anyway i think we can prevail in that fog and here's why everything that the entirety of the judge whom like mr lopez of cooperated and judges routinely except sentences of twenty years or less for career offenders who have cooperated and we've got cooperation here the government filed a motion for for downward departure it was granted but what it having been through a lot of these senate things myself may have looked at this differently but i think a lot of the judges comment here we're invited by the prosecutor because if you look at the transcript well i'm actually looking at the transcript right now in the court is giving a lot of detail about mr lopez's significant criminal history based on the pre sentence investigation report including that he grew up in a two parent household where both parents were working and you know lived in a neighborhood i mean he obviously had an impression about the sentence here that he had to hold his nose to approve it is exact words based answer would be if you're going to have criminal history like that involving any sentencing with someone that's arm for criminal or career offender and that's why it's really important for the prosecutor to make a good faith recommendation we did not have a good faith recommendation to the court to follow up for to the court if it was not a good faith recommendation to run the even a day less would be an insult to the federal sentencing statute i don't think prong three can be met because i don't think there was any recommendation that was going to change that and even before the prosecutor got up and spoke even on page twelve you can see that the judge is concerned about the defendant trying to sort of put some of the blame on his childhood i mean talk about how this page twelve a fine for the record that the defendant's not absolutely horrified repulsed by that going over to participate again and expose himsel this ruinous lifestyle so the judge clearly had a view coming into the sentencing secondly i don't think the plainness prong can be met all mr lopez's cases really involve the government promising to do one thing and then actively doing the opposite too low which was really directly contrary to not asking for a variance from something guidelines and finally i don't even think there's an error here well well it was somewhat in artful i think if you look at pages fourteen through sixteen of going four and one thousand through twenty  prosecutor i think what he was really an enthusiastic about was something that wasn't in the plea agreement that was being asked for and this was the thirty nine month below the c one c to give this to give mr lopez some credit for time served in the state that's not about being concurrent going forward that's about giving him credit for something that was an agreement he was also i think responding to this effort again to shift some of the blame child certainly make some comments about that as well so i don't think there was even  all right thank you thank you