issue as to whether mr anderson who is a young man twenty three at the time of his plea should be entitled to have his plea back his guilty plea back because he was confused said the government describes as unequivocal but i would argue is anything but unequivocal he was he was clearly confused about the nature of the charge and he was confused guarding  government the only thing the government presented was a very odd police report a complaint indicating that basically on the night of this alleged shooting somebody described as a six foot tall black man in the bronx shot somebody else no connection between that and events to which mister anderson had pled even if that document itself would be the type of document that the court could rely upon and would indicate that this court has united states forces keyless had question district courts about accepting on sworn statements as evidence but specifically he says on february eighth two thousand and ten i took out displayed a firearm in the vicinity of eight hundred ninety five woodside avenue you and it was in connection with distributing controlled substances at burnside but now that such such disavows are looked at with some skepticism they generally are your own to put the cases in which they have been looked at with skepticism have involved a more robust indication of the facts and we had here here we have very little facts this is the only elocution if you look at the three cases cited by the government gonzales and hersh he to those cases there was much right you said one thing one day you know i'm telling you something else now well yes but he has some more support than just his statement he has the evidence that he was in fact incarcerated on the day of the alleged shooting he has that that about it he has to in order to disavow that he's indicating that he was making a great forts are very skeptical of such police now he's saying well the police report says shows i was or there's evidence i was in jail but not for the entire day and he's not saying you know i was in the siri in the evening or i wasn't in the evening what ever i mean i'm not just not sure where in the district court abused its discretion in finding th knowing involuntary play and it wasn't going to allow withdrawal which is the standard here right that's clear ok it's clear however you and i think the where the judge did abuse his discretion was not by pursuing it by developing a record he had there was ample time there was ample presence when this could have been developed it was dismissed out of hand on a very rote what the discrepancy between the time that the government alleging this event took place and the time that mr anderson was was incarcerated and where he was he also indicates where he was at the time later in the evening he doesn't get into a precise discussion because frankly you want to there is no evidence of a precise time judge starr and also be used his discretion by saying that mr the there was no other evidence that came in this police report is just sitting out there you know what's also interesting you want to if you look at the p s on this note victim impact statement somebody was supposed to open sho him and to plea and he is asking for a plea asking for plea back it's also clearly against his own interest because if he committed that shooting this is a good plea deal he was looking at a twenty year mandatory minimum but for this plea deal which the government agreed to take seven years mandatory minimum but he's entry he's asking for his police back and he's in these pursuing this appeal with the idea that he may be facing a much greater sentence and i think that that's something that court should take into account i think some additional questions and i think also with his discretion by not developing over to explain the time it took for him to bring the motion  it please the court molly bracewell representing the government on appeal here the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to allow the withdrawal of anderson's plea for the following four reasons first anderson waited six months to move to withdraw his plea and has never offered an explanation for this delay whether andersen had met his burden was appropriately considered in light of this delay second anderson's plea was knowing involuntary as the transcript of the plea proceeding made clear he acknowledged under oath that he understood the charges against him that he was satisfied with his representation and that he was in fact guilty judge stein did not overlook anderson's claim of confusion but instead he considered and rejected it based upon what the transcript otherwise revealed that despite struggling momentarily during judge that burns questioning when asked about an agreement anderson had an opportunity to confer with his counsel and  in plain language and under oath to the offense conduct third the defendant's claim of innocence is baseless nothing that defendant has put forward is inconsistent with the conduct to which he allocute it specifically has involvement in the instan on february eighth two thousand and ten the defendant a tips to make much of the government's lack of evidence but this is doesn't prove anything of his innocence but reflects the timing of his pretrial plea the government had no need   no opportunity to present evidence to prove its case the defendant also has raised questions about the n y p d complaint report and this is a document that was produced to the defendant in the course of discovery and submitted to the district court for the limited personal purpose  that he had proved his innocence by showing he was released on bail on the afternoon of feb eighth two thousand and ten even setting the wrist port aside anderson's allegations considered on their own  found does not establish that anderson did not brandish a weapon that day forth and finally anderson confirmed his satisfaction with mr lee's representation when he entered the plea and evaluating the ineffective assistance of counsel claim judge signed how to develop factual record that included and anderson's affidavits and anderson's comments about his counsel made under oath on the record anderson has not shown any deficiencies in mr lee's conduct much less establish that he would have gone to trial but for these errors and it would have been rational under these circumstances in any event any confusion that his counsel might have caused or failed to clarify was more than cured by judge that burns lee i think there is no reason to for on that claim because the record below is fully developed and includes mr lee statements the district court had an opportunity in the first instance to make a ruling rejecting the claim as for minimum the government's conceded in this brief that for every minute so the question of what's the scope would have remained in this case you are we would say that the whole matter want to be reversed and sent back so that the judge since we're going to be in the district court the usual arguments in terms of tradition we come to me and the opportunity for defense counsel to respond to the allegation of in effect assistance of counsel don't apply when the if the case is going to go back and be reviewed those issues can be addressed by the district court that what the government suggesting is no let's send the case back to the district court let the district court correct the sentence and then at that point start the whole whole twenty to fifty five process again where that is unjust is that this is a case in which the sentence is seventy four eighty four months which means he would be released in approximately six years past my seventy two months he served about half of that the process that the government suggesting would likely use up most if not all of that time here we can have the efficiency of having the case we further back to the district court let the district court make findings regarding to confusing the issues which i've raised as to lack of a basis as well as address the ineffective assistance of mr dinh esteem in terms of making the motion since obviously and that can be decided at that point we'll have a decision back you know in a few months and then it will come back if there's going to be an appeal will be an appeal at that time and you'll have a completed record the court this panel wants to retain jurisdiction so that you have all these issues and can be brought back when you have that procedure or can come back to another panel snuff for me to tell you how to handle that but i think this is what makes this  that i would just say that the i just go back to you know the government says they put up that report to rebut mr anderson statement but it doesn't but anything because there's no indication that that report has been in the to do with the with the crime here other than the government statement which is insufficient just talking thank you very much thank you but we reserve decision