until it's your turn to talk thank you thank you thank you an evidentiary hearing with witnesses here so there was no discussion but not only did the judge have dr mark he says report of confidence the defense lawyer she specifically asked the defense lawyer are you objecting to that do you want me to have t is a very very difficult situation where our it was not a case where there were conflicting reports and the judge a just ask you that was there anything during the trial i don't the st day he spoke out and was told that you know he can speak out of turn but other than that was there any indication during the trial that any any competency issues in fact the government nobody but during jury selection suggested to challenges to particular jurors and during the discussion about retaining counsel you had a back and forth with the judge about discovery and not enough time so was there anything during the trial to suggest that he didn't understand says he's competent to stand sense counsel says they have no objection doesn't ask for a hearing you have a defendant who's responsive and participates in his own defense and no objection from the lawyer houser there as a matter of water abus discretion for the judge to not have held a hearing because the judge has already adopted the st report was the st that he that he might get better i know that it said was was changing from opinion then that would be one thing but she didn't and in fact that sentencing she indicated that she had the opinion that he wasn't really able to that we didn't have obviously trouble getting along with his attorney i would say cortices you know mental problems but it's not that he gets cycled through one after the other and all of the sentencing and the court is entitled to consider those facts for the appeal given that obviously at trial the trial evidence was constrained by the rules of evidence so they were facts that came out through witness interviews that w hearsay and couldn't have been included in the trial but were included in the p s r and thus the court should be able to consider them for purposes of decision here with respect to the competency issue the challenge is waived to whether there was a competency hearing because judge hall did hold such a hearing but even if it's not judge hall appropriately president dr mark has and report dr mark has met with mr kelsey on five occasions over four months consulted with  psychiatry two met with him on one other occasion and minister didn't object to the competence assessment tool becomes more than two hours of his phone calls and consider the observations of prison staff who saw him on a date and it makes sense for almost four months in the hearing judge hall specifically said that she was quote mindful unquote of the st report by doctors on but she appropriately credited dr marquez's report because of all of these advantages that dr martens report had that for the personality disorder with which mr kelsey was diagnosed and was suffering from even at the time of trial that medication would not necessarily be required for such a disorder me his treatment regimen of which there really wasn't any wasn't necessarily something to his disadvantage and should not be a reason to discredit the mark as report moving to the issue of mr judge hall denying mr kelsey's th hour request for yet another attorney on this point it's important to consider the entire record of the case in context at every court appearance mr kelsey selection but instead sprung it on the court twelve minutes before evidence began and he stated on the record only that he had an attorney who was willing to submit pretrial motions on his behalf not that he had one was ready to proceed to trial so judge hall had granted mr kelsey's request a long trial delay would have been the likely result as the counsel reviewed discovery and prepared and emotions assuming judge hall even reopened the motions that line the balancing the late timing of the request the presence of government witnesses in new haven for trial which included young women for whom the trial date had been kicked numerous times and they were prepared to discuss very sensitive topics as well as out of state witnesses also balance her confidence in the two experience defense attorneys who were ready to proceed the empanel jurors convenience and ultimately did not abuse her discretion in denying the the references by the attorneys the attorney to his client talking too much and wanting to plead guilty hoping a point guilty and the suggestion is that this indicated a breakdown in trust relationship so can you address made during the charges were comments about defense counsel's assessment of the strength of the government evidence there was no indication that lynch a county was not cooperating with the counsel in that one point on the record attorney thousands and that she wanted mr healthy to be in the courtroom more and charge conference and other pretrial and during trial proceedings so that he could see so no your honor the the restitution how was that the government collects money for a young lady who whose pay was generated by prostitution activities which would only go wrong that have been well established i that she may not be able to supplement the record and find facts that support the introduction of an immediate resolution order against mr kelsey but we do believe that she should be given that opportunity and it may well end up that she ends up putting into putting him into a payment plan rather than requiring immediate so you are accepting the like i said in context he had already it is already been you know you've been precluded from presenting any evidence about the fact that the woman might have looked older than eighteen  i would just say quickly on that that if if robinson is read to preclude that then what is the point of that section in the statute w if if you can look at a person and reasonably believe that they are over the age of consent then what is what is the op why is there an opportunity to observe so i think you have to assume that the that the legislature intended that a reasonable view would lead a reasonable person to presume that the on the basis of the testimony of sarah that he didn't they didn't split the payment after the st night and i disagree with that