but you want is right there was the standard central district waiver of appealing which in a new position is a that's way of only goes to the plea anything having to do with conviction but doesn't cover the castle prio you don't think the lawyer would have said well i don't know i don't know if the lawyer contemplated a challenge to pass a termination i guess i'm asking someone slightly different question i'm saying since she lived it was never constitutionalized likely done in this case but i think it was presented enough to the district court that this should be an abuse of discretion and again i'm not trying to say anything about about pretrial services or judge phillip i think there frustration that grew with mr jerry based upon her promises to do things which she fully intended to do and then her not following through because she just she was broke she will go you know you're asking us to file and the judge abuse discretion he should go back and reinstate or or have a hearing on the reason she said she didn't comply what is it with what the judge do wrong that we are supposed to remedy that the judge didn't give sufficient consideration to her apartment status and how that directly correlated with her noncompliance in september and november of two thousand and fourteen i think the records developed enough for the court to remand it with an order that she be put back in diversion if the court feels that the good morning your honor is may it please the court ashley off the united states defendant's waiver of appeal results her contentions in this court defendant waived quote any right to appeal her conviction she's not she's not appealing her conviction that that  standard appeal waiver language that you all including plea agreement gets that in the ordinary case you would agree it gets out things like that your factual guilt for the underlying offense you're not going to be able to raise any challenges to that you're not  you're going to end up waiving any right to if you brought a suppression motion is that kind of thing right it goes to that you're guilty of the offense the thing that we're that's before us now is a totally quadrille matter right that whether you complied with the conditions of this diversion program it doesn't seem to me it's wrapped up at all in the things that are normally covered by that the standard plea waiver language that we're dealing with here i would disagree with your honor and i think this court's precedents in rome and drano stand for the same proposition in rahman and and drama discusses one other case are effectively indistinguishable from the language here i guess i don't i don't follow that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea you think is as collateral to the standard plea waiver language as this similarly entailed by the conviction and i think the facts here emphasize this in the context of casa specifically because the contract made plain that the finance conviction would exist if and only if she was terminated casa or quit casa there was no other circumstance under which she would have a conviction to appeal in this case and still is not she's not appealing her conviction i guess that's what i just i think your position is wrong here because she's not saying i want to go back and litigate whether i don't remember what the underlying charge was is a drug charge she's not trying to say well no actually i didn't give the person the drugs or whatever that's not what she's trying to do it and she's trying to disagree with you cannot get to that point without unwinding her conviction there is no way back to the determination of casa without overturning or vacating her conviction in this case there's no way there's no other way there this isn't an appeal from a collateral order this isn't some sort of  you want to argue this i guess don't know how you're trying to argue it but it seems to me what our case is saying is that the language of these are waivers is construed against you the government has the drafter and we're supposed to figure out what a reasonable defendant with reasonable counsel giving them competent advice would understand that waiver language to me and i mean my experience is that people look at that language and if you added another sentence like your opponent suggested maybe we wouldn't be here but people look at that language and they would tell their client you're going to give up any right to challenge your factual innocence of these charges you're you're basically putting all that aside we're going to go over and do this other thing and there are all these rules of course you have to comply with but i don't think a a reasonable lawyer in this situation would have known to tell her and by the way if no matter what the arbitrary basis on which the judge might terminate for you from this program you're not going to be here respectfully i think they're very similar and a general waiver of appeal is not ambiguous the general includes the specific and as a result it would include appeal from casa here to on the reasonable expectations both the record in this case and i think the structure of casa more generally what defendants expectations were during her rule levon colloquy the judge phillips that actually an exceptionally clear job of explaining to defendant that if she pleaded guilty pursuant to this plea agreement there would be nothing left in the case other than either casa or sentencing she specifically said that you are sixty nine the defendant will be bound by her guilty plea even if she didn't complete the casa program and even if she was ultimately unhappy with the sentence she received so i think the actually lend support to the government's interpretation and finally i wouldn't go so far as the pushback on the construal against the drafter rule but defendant was represented by a member of the public defender's office the public defender's office is a partner with my office in the casa program and jointly developed the program including the casa contract this is the only appeal ever in about two hundred current and former participants of terminations of casa there have been about twelve in every case the public defender's office has been a part of those cases the public defender's office has been a part of drafting these documents i think in the simply room and has been used over time and so i think both the specific record and the more general record of how operate rebuts the presumption the defendant would never cuts directly against you i'm surprised you raise that as a point in your favorite seems to me that that just proves my intuition which is that if you're assuming that because they're warning any appeals on the other twelve  cases where there were terminations that the public defender said were bound by this damply wave shoot rather than well maybe they just didn't have any basis to actually appeal and i guess i'm saying that the vast majority of lawyers criminal defense lawyers who look at that language  understand it to relate to something totally different to the underlying charge that the person is trying to fight against rather than the grounds for termination because i guarantee you if in one of those cases the person actually had complied with every single condition imposed but for some arbitrary or perhaps unconstitutional reason the district court judge just said you know what i just don't like you if you're terminated and your conviction is going to now be fine no i know those lawyers would say we didn't sign up for this and we certainly didn't wave our ability to challenge the judge's decision to terminate you when there was no basis for doing as a textural matter your honor i considered i still disagree that said i will spend my last four minutes on the merits the i think the standard of review should be plain error for any constitutional aspect of defendants claim and abuse of discretion for their more general claims defendant never raised any constitutional objection to terminations from casa the only thing on the record indicating defendant's argument at that time i effectively a letter in mitigation that was written by her public defender at the time arguing for lesser sanctions even after ms gerrit's multiple violations insofar as there was no constitutional claim preserved i think it should be reviewed for plain error and an interesting aspect of that claim in particular is that i disagree with my colleague a little bit in that it's effectively a procedural constitutional claim it's akin to the procedures that one has to do at sentencing advising that if and the various rights are getting the guidelines correctly under the various constitutional cases affected the court has to consider fault before terminating an impoverished defendant for failure to pay as this court doesn't procedural  viewing for plane air you cannot find clean air on this record where the record demonstrates that the district court did take into account defendant's fall did find the defendants credibility was in question found that she had just repeated excuses over the course of eighteen months always made these promises to do better and to move and never did i think particularly for a view on player that would satisfy any considerations underlying the constitutional line of cases moreover defendant can't demonstrate prejudice even if there isn't a record of what the district court thought exactly at the time the sentencing transcript makes abundantly clear exactly what the district court had in mind at the time and particularly given that the district court had an eighteen month period during which to look this defendant in the eye and assess her efforts to comply with the conditions that she undertook in this case there certainly can be no finding of an abuse of discretion and on the ground the government would submit that the case should be dismissed or else denied on