to determine whether mr beale understood the charges against him and there are several factors this court has laid out the first of which is the complexity of the charge and this court has cases going back years and years discussing about how difficult there's got to be something other than the selling and buying of drugs and there's just not that in this case to support the factual basis compounding that is the district court did not further explain what this meant and  did i did understand how often do we make a determination that the he defended the circumstances does not really mean what he said not often i think there is a case in my brief united states versus bar where they did hold that the defendant didn't don understand the charges that were explained to him and from my experience it may not be often or not and i think that defendants often agree that they understand something that maybe they don't rare situation where mr then senator listen i don't understand this i don't understand how i'm convicted of conspiracy when it was just me and just me you sound so i think we do look at the entire record and you saw as i didn't there's there's no you know there's no support for it whatsoever in the p s r otherwise that you know it is you i think quite clearly laid out in your brief the question i have is under what obligation is this court under to evaluate you know the evidence that's in the record whether it comes from the p s r or otherwise to kind of test that proffer if you will by the government and where does that obligation come from i think that's what i'm arguing this court should power to review the district court's determination necessarily means in a case like this that you have to evaluate the statements and i understand that that the combination of the two facts here are are what concerns me for mr neil's perspective and that is the the fronting statement you know that was often times that was fronting occurring in substance and then you have the common  occasions why don't those two facts combined to permit an inference that a conspiracy was present i think because we do have cases that that's just a buyer he's buying from a supplier he's going sour and that's a so that is simply there's no indication that there's anything other than regular dealing and i think this port said at one point made a comparison to buying a hamburger at mcdonald's you're not making an i mcdonald's that every time you buy hamburger you're going to buy it at mcdonald's sometimes you might buy it from burger king or wendy's or wherever you may like your burger that day but there's not a mcdonald's so i think that it recognizes that even though there are continuous transactions and perhaps for large amounts there needs to be something more to show the conspiracy in this case i see that i'm far into my rebuttal time or has further questions like shelters or my remaining review is made here this is a case where the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea to raise an issue in the district court it has to be raised to a degree that it can be resolved judge gilbert didn't treat this as a motion to withdraw guilty plea the government didn't withdraw the conversation as a motion to withdraw the guilty plea but it probably looks like you've done your honor in well i showed him so on but he's claiming he didn't see them so we have the first break my recollection is there's a second break and then we get to the are there any other objections besides relevant conduct except in use of violence reckless endangerment obstructing and that's when he says judge i don't understand how it could be a conspiracy i don't have co defendants at that point he doesn't the defense attorney doesn't say judge it's my understanding he wants to withdraw his guilty plea and i will tell the court that the first time i became aware that there was a claim that the defendant moved to withdraw as guilty here is claimed that he moved to withdraw his guilty plea is when i got the brief in this case the first time judge fielder's going to become aware of the fact that mr neil is claiming that he moved to withdraw his guilty plea is going to be when he gets the court's opinion this was not a meaningful motion to withdraw his guilty plea if anything it certainly appeared that judge defendant had counsel of choice who represented the change of plea we then showed she filed objections multiple objections we responded that the government showed up with its witnesses on the day of started saying there was an irreconcilable differences between the defense gave a tight hired new counsel there were multiple delays and there was i believe thirteen months between the change of plea and the sentencing in this case we believe the also the fact that a defendant admit something at sentencing or at plea under oath there cannot be an additional burden to prove those facts that the defendant has has pled to under oath if a defendant  basis under oath and then the government is still tasked with the burden of putting evidence into the record on facts that have been admitted under oath sentencing would be unmanageable i don't know how there could ever be awarding them an acceptance of responsibility this court has repeatedly shown that what a defendant the government's admissions under oath are presumed truthful if we look at those admissions momus roberts and i mean they are they are really thin on the conspiracy point it may come down to one sentence in that that sentences you know quote the evidence would be that oftentimes the cocaine was either obtained or provided on fronts you confident that's enough drugs with regular standardized dealing over an extended period coupled with sales on credit is sufficient to establish conspiracy but we've also said that occasional sales on credit are not enough that they may indicate that respectfully in the appellate brief they indicate that jerry jones said they were never provided on a project and that that's not reason or no notice so the government put it dition all evidence in the defendant admit it pled guilty to conspiracy and one of the things he admitted is that oftentimes the drugs were admitted or attain to provide a non pro he said that under oath it cannot be that then the government has to go and put on additional evidence to something he's not contested at sentencing it's sentencing he was contesting relevant conduct and a marked myriad of other things he wasn't evidence in this case is sufficient to support conspiracy there is a lot evidence that the defendant had others working with him in the distribution he indicated he had it on these one to two week trips to epping ham he had a driver we know that he had a driver taken to the deliveries of drugs one time he put his associate in a car with the c s just to make sure that everything was ok after the deal to escort the c s we know that there were repeated acts of evidence in this record where the defendant and others were acting in concert to protect the defendants drug business that's being a c s was beaten by the defendants associates and when the c s was beaten they were saying this is because  first two controlled buys where the c s is kendrick and then after the by the defendant calling a cab contacting a putting his associate marshall and kendrick in the cab to drive them away that is that judgment of the district court to prove up the factual basis then we can say but there's no evidence of fronting that's ethically which they seem to acknowledge at least in the record that so perhaps the conspiracy to assault other people the connection to a drug conspiracy is fairly thin because those people were not going to be directly involved and at least one of them was not trying to be directly