meaning twenty zero nine to twenty twelve or thirteen and that would have been william cook who is a former very fine a o was in this building and a former opponent and did she apologize because she wasn't giving you the promised immunity or words to that effect to moot mr cook said yes that is back on track and number another word about deferred prosecution until our record reflects may twenty ten when the government brought up possible to have some diversion program in your and mr cook said no or not if you're talking about corporate diversion and the answer is no never exploring what do we have we have the department of justice in this building who represents the government every day before this court representing to defense the prosecution document draft after all there is not all the facts in there that is so remote it may be laughable because at that point this court room in this case we will talk to this part where he explains the entire scheme to the government the entire you're skinny this is before and after judge at the change of plea hearing specifically told the district court judge when you pleading guilty that no other promises have been made to him by the government or anybody else his understanding at that time was there were but for the motion to withdraw the plea based on your allegation that your client received immunity how do you get around the fact that he told the judge while under oath that no just tried to get an answer to the question of how do you get around that under oath your client specifically said to the district court judge that he was pleading guilty that he was satisfied with this lawyers counsel you've got twelve minutes mean please the court when you write me on behalf of the united states your honor is the issue before it was where the district court abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea agreement on the grounds that he claimed he had received immunity from the government and the district court correctly found that there was no actual offer or agreement for immunity and the district courts finding was based in the information on the court found that at most defense counsel was hoping that the line prosecutor would recommend immunity from prosecution and not that the defendant actually had i and in that letter he acknowledged that the government was free to use in the investigative leads developed from his proffer against him and that's relevant because counsel is asking this court to rely on the notion of equitable or some type of informal immunity but in those cases those defendants actually had some type of agreement with the government there's certain information wouldn't be used against them and against those agreement which was a draft presented in october two thousand and nine represented as the initial basis of the goetia but it was presented for negotiating i'm not saying it was blessed by the supervisors but it was a draft and signed copy without any detail other than the defendant's name but in recent years that percent of the day he was supposed to testify in the grand jury no the october sixteenth two thousand nine me to the u s attorney's office was preparation for a future grand jury an appearance