pitt who was previously convicted felon went to florida to clean his father's house out and bring the belongings back to massachusetts included in those belongings were firearms and i'm sure you know that   to using very very old non violent drug offenses to enhance current penalties and that's what we have in this case and because it's a positive change in the law that was in active while his case was on tape wrapped appeal so it's a non final conviction at this point new law this isn't collateral review  continuing on with the a c c and on i did argue that the massachusetts statute which was you know conviction which was used to enhance its sentence from distributing and as the argument goes and because the massachusetts statute includes means of violating the statute that are not included in the federal and just what i want to say at this point besides everything else i said is that that word dispensing bets that's important it's not that the federal law i never thought about that possibility it's just that it didn't in this case maybe it was a slip of the tongue but it was said to the defendant that he was facing merely the possibility of a completed we don't know what instrument one b is it could trigger a higher sentence and i believe judge it was one of your cases caster of governments who says certainty isn't necessary it is enough that we find that this information it was important to the defendant that may include in his briefs the mesas of ineffective assistance of counsel now i understand the record is not complete but this court to be able to  right now getting any into any specifics but i do want your b s the issue of the contract between the government and the defendant that documents i think we can all and with our getting into too many specifics i'm just asking for a judicial review of those contrasts is any other context if one party to a contract could induce another to enter into a contract accept consideration then later claim that consideration is just not valuable refused to perform not even alleged breach e n that party would have the sole discretion to decide whether or not there was performance any other context that would be unconscionable contract contracts will disputes must be subject to judicial review the one sided this is so inherently unfair and i to two really interesting articles on on  refer you know reverse that will twenty five year old conviction the government told prior counsel oh that's a breach you know you're going to go in but you'll have been fifteen years you know b years not buying if you're going to go in without a plea agreement and you could get life and then private counsel they changed and then another one came on board another one human for  suggesting allegedly any sort of breach and that's the point that i'm highlighting as the right could have been offered to let you know when given the opportunity to be offered i think counsel again had the opportunity and failed to take advantage of it last there are any other questions on this topic i've given that will be nature of the proceedings i will move for and address the other arguments made made here today with respect to the knowing nature of the and the defendant's argument that that the district court failed to adequately inform him to manage my minimum sentence here i just don't think there's any reasonable reading of the record that supports that claim in the course of the plea colloquy the district court referred  and judge i think you referred to the critically dispensed it depends or use of the word possible here and i think that's exactly right given that it's the information that would be necessary to determine whether the defendant's prior convictions qualif you his opening brief and required reading again here to say that discussing and distributing mean different things under massachusetts law the relevant question though is whether it dispensing as that term is defined under massachusetts law means that encompasses conduct that does not fall within the definition of serious truck offense under that a c c a and that is a question that the defendant has that answered and i would submit that the  ground case practically resolves here at least in so far as clean air review is concerned i'm happy to get into the specifics of that claim but given the rather cursory analysis by the defendant we are argument that the statute is indivisible is essentially limited to saying so and the response to government's quaver argument in the require brief is to again emphasize that dispensing and distributing means two different