subject to a final removal order at the time of see if never the last because he had been released on effectively immigration supervised release and had argued that therefore he was lawfully in the last the nd circuit found that there was a reasonable probability that had he known about the knowledge requirement he would not have pled guilty and there was actually significant possibility that he pled guilty notion that defense counsel should have raised the issue when it was contrary to existing law and should therefore be panelized by not doing so based on a plane air standard wrong to me and there's there's some suggestion and boy he didn't testify this was at a detention hearing and the issue in the context of the the argument at the detention hearing is was he going to be removed by and the issue revolved around  what his status and his status was he was out of status but because he had a pending application he was not subject to removal in other words ice was a bathing removal it's not that  you're illegally illegally in the united states up to the jury in other words i mean well if it was a trial it would be we've got a police we've got a different standard here to to  and the standard yes under under the record is there evidence of his knowledge and the record is replete with his knowledge in fact from his own mouth the not only the detention hearing and his admission that he's admitting that he came in on a nonimmigrant visa one month visitor visa and over state that is knowledge that he's here illegally but he only going i mean how bad the fact think you're really awful awful they had when the guy actually said i have a work on the reservation i'm married to a united states citizen i am here we go all right well if there is not a factor spewed about his knowledge of whether go agreed i am doing it slicing lee fan and if you don't think that that's were they have pursuing let me throw another wrinkle and received in indictment was bad mine is good i've got him charged both actions as an illegal alien and then also entry and under anonyma grant visa and certainly under the new section b five b as a nonimmigrant visa there's no doubt that he's guilty of that i mean he had everything he had met shows that he entered as a nonimmigrant overstayed didn't adjust his status so there is no reasonable probability this case is going to change when we when he gets remanded we're going to pursue that bad venue and he's going to have to plead illegal so that's that's my argument i know it's fine i understand that but under the law under the plea law with plain error the facts are that if it's a on his one visitor visa and overstayed and became a legal at that point the judge then goes through the elements are you  legal alien not were you are you an illegal alien and so here now says well that you know that's a bad colloquy and you know whether he's an illegal at the time of the plea has nothing to do with the time of the  but that is that is a reading completely out of context what the judge was asking is are you an illegal alien from the day that you are stage or liza back in two thousand and seven and that was the context of that other everybody understood that i mean judge ottery wasn't confused about you know if you're illegal at the time of the police does that make you you know you're not illegal at the time of the offense that's not that's clearly not what happening here so again this case is better than rehab it's better than boldly and i don't think and admittedly dumb rock on my part with the indictment mean i don't know why i had charged it both and these other people didn't but i think it saves it and so if there's any questions about that saying no thank you the defendant knew the facts that the law deems constitute a legal status that argument was clearly rejected in rehab the government argued there that because ignorance of the law was not a defense to a criminal charge it was not required to as i said it's indispensable in our system and i think you