right our final case for today is united states against robinson guidelines asserting that the district court erred after weighting the guidelines and despite applying a downward variance never the less has created a substantive and substantial procedural  the government responds st that the argument has been waived we submit this is incorrect for two reasons number one the argument is not a challenge to the guilty plea we think the court's case law is clear that the conspiracy guilty plea is valid the only question is what was the drug quantity where not we didn't there was no waiver of anything that happened at the guilty plea hearing and therefore we but he still played guilty to a conspiracy involving at least five hundred grams of math just drove there it is true that when asked by the district court judge at the beginning of the plea gehringer or near the beginning of the police hearing he answered yes to the judge's words do you plead guilty to a conspiracy involving that amount when the topic shifted to a factual basis and what mr robinson was admitting to the story was very different on three separate occasions he specifically denies not not just saying here's how much i delivered he specifically did not as a statement by either the district court judge or the government when giving its summary of the factual basis and then when giving a summary of what the co defendants say but he's talking but we're talking ships passing in the night he's very insistent about how much he personally delivered on those two occasions and he has his explanation for the rd occasion that this is a conspiracy and he pleads guilty to a itself puts him in the sentencing range i mean i gather your whole point for this is because if if there's not enough in the record then we would under booker and elaine and all the rest of it we would have to go to the lower of admissions again he said yes when the judge uses the words five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine his answer is yes that it's conspiracy he doesn't have to part he can draw the line between what he personally delivered and what a coconspirator delivered so he could have been telling what he understood to be absolute truth when he talks about how much he personally was dealing with and yet it could still be a conspiracy for the larger amount if he if he had not also on the record specifically denied the five hundred grams or more i would completely agree your honor but at least twice in response to the question you know are you agreeing with what was just said and what you just was said was five hundred grams or one five he says i heard but that's not what happened that's not what you are still talking about what he did is i read that passage so the number to your honor i thought where is it on the record where he's saying that i'm i reasonably foresee that my coconspirators have been involved with a conspiracy i see your point your honor but i think and i'll admit that with all the arguments before the court it comes down to this and the question is what does it take to be a lean sufficient let's let's remove something that's going to change and forty one b one category is how important is that what kind of that mission is necessary i have found nothing that bequeaths it to a factual basis and what it takes to admit an element of the offense other than to say well you know what you what you say has to get to that threshold of what it takes to be guilty of a conspiracy and at no point in this plea hearing is anybody saying what's reasonably foreseeable to you what is the drug amount that is reasonably foreseeable other than the question at the beginning saying are you guilty of an offense that's five hundred grams or more involving methamphetamine answer yes followed by repeated denial denial  and that's argument that that's insufficient to support and a lean sufficient waiver of the right to have that issue go to the jury we don't think it's waived we think it's definitely not harmless it's definitely prejudicial because the district court began with that the wrong guidelines range and it is not the rep here but remedy it appropriate would not be to vacate completely court's precedent to make him and make the entire conspiracy amount reasonably forseeable to him it was the robinson drug trafficking organization and he admitted at his changeup the hearing and at his sentencing that he was the leader of the conspiracy and as we discussed this case it's important to remember that the facts are undisputed at his sentencing hearing mr robinson admitted that the facts in the p s r were true an kilograms of methamphetamine and that mr robinson was the leader of the conspiracy are we are we done though is soon as he's admitted that it's five hundred grams or more i mean if we're talking about the range whether it was something you know with waiver forfeiture or it should reach the same result the district court correctly sentenced mr robinson for the crime that he admitted he committed and so unless the court has any additional questions the united states asked the court to affirm and will comment on its brief thank you rick thank you anything for the mr brant it's not too much there to read but right i have leadership to rebut and i would like to attempt  sentencing that a defendant does not object anything at the present report does not inevitable eat constitute a waiver it is not true that mr robinson gave up on leadership he objected to the leadership and han