respond to the government i want to start out with what i believe or should be maybe the only point of agreement in this entire case i think it's fairly fairly not subject to dispute that every person involved in the proceedings from the district judge the u s attorneys the probation officer to defense counsel understood that if the taylor wanted to challenge that he was a career offender and david taylor wanted a lawyer that would help with that challenge i think everyone knew that i think the judge knew that through questioning of mr taylor without counsel present here earlier and and and in every subsequent letter that he sent mr taylor's position had been unwavering he simply wanted to be able to challenge his face to face dramatic stakes it increased a sentence by a hundred and ten months he wanted the in arizona what was his defense first of all i don't believe that those i don't believe that he has ever admitted those convictions i don't believe what does it mean i don't understand i don't believe there's no which one argument one you have to look at three different statutes in arizona and like many other states he attempts statute purports on its face to punish any act not a substantial step now he does say that that he wanted more time to get the material from arizona the lawyer said i got in the material from the arizona so that's an issue that may come up in some other venue so then we get to this case and in your designation in its briefing at least two places and out of an abundance of in a situation like that i'm entitled to respond to it and i did reply sure that even if you are entitled to consider it i'm sorry the only thing that comes close to this issue is a footnote in your reply brief what's i'm just not sure of the issues really before us your honor and i think it is i realize that perhaps i think my motion shows how it is before you answer if you don't feel it is i think it would be a manifest in justice not to reach this issue manifest injustice that assumes that assume something the first lawyer was wrong because he i'm not sure i understand your question we say there's a manifest injustice but you have to make an assumption that any the lawyer was wrong the first time when it didn't jack to those prior to the priors and b counsel of record at that point in time and remained so until after sentencing and i think that reflects the fact that there really wasn't a legal basis to challenge it if one takes a look at the arizona statute for armed in january sixteenth mr johnson made a motion to withdraw that's correct your honor there was a total breakdown of communications with the client or something to that effect you know a few weeks criminal considered a career criminal under to forty one point one and that that would be too much time and he at times in those letters makes reference to the fact that age judge in arizona and may or may not have said he was a nonviolent no i repeat offender i don't believe that there's anything in the record to substantiate that but that's in his letters column so the district court had all of those things i don't know that any prior convictions unequivocally make him a career criminal under the sentencing guidelines he's not happy with that he's not happy with them and he refuses to speak to them and that is that is part of the problem i think case and it strikes me as i was reading through the entire record i was not counsel below that it is that it is sort of a catch twenty two for everyone involved because he  defendant to be a career offender where the sentencing factors are felony convictions and i take it that that's what counts was referring to the jew brought it up i think just by reading the block in preparation for this argument and took a look at the arizona statute it really is there is only one arizona statute for armed robbery so it's not as if we're talking about something that's particularly complex or difficult for withdrawing substitution in that case too and that case after the judge still using the district judge who watched and entire trial that apparently was fairly lengthy and watched the defendant and counsel interact and then that concluded that he had enough information that you then had to have had enough information to make the decision without in croyde which is very very different and then here i see my