reply brief his is directed to that it was filed timely within the one year period upon mr a real altos learning of the of the mandatory deportation and that's  real altos when she learned while she was on supervised release was about the only difference when both attorneys both in the kwan and in the real altos case ma and they felt or in that a lot review article which i cited there also seems to be no reason to disk in which between a situation in which an attorney or firmly misstates to law and one in which he fails to make a statement when a reasonable attorney would have done so the government cited the fry case essentially failure to advise a client of immigration consequences of the conviction without more it's not a violation of sex and then essentially but that's really not were disgusting we're not talking is more and that is the counsel did not advise because he simply forgot the consequences of the immigration and that is one year and one day makes it an aggravated mandatory deportation whereas less than one year is not mandatory deportation and under the facts of this particular case mr altos would not be deported at all he also trial counsel argued for you know absence by asking the court for one went back to this court the whether or not the guidelines which were not advisory at the time isreal altos was originally sevens the court i don't believe was informed at all as to the immigration consequences so we wouldn't know if the district court judge at that time would have departed down that extra day because as the declaration trial counsel it was presented simply totally forgot all the immigration consequences never raised the immigration consequences to the district court judges sentencing to request a departure never inform the appellant of the consequences and th trying to say is that unlike quine the disk records should realize the immigration consequences and advisor and that the well the district court and advisor of that government invites or that  advice meant this if you are a resident alien this will result in your deportation denial of reentry and so forth that when that's done in every ailing case but in this particular case very much like kwan case the attorneys competence may have revolved to the point that a failure to inform a defendant of the deportation consequences of the police would by itself now be objectively and reasonable plea and as of the time of the sentencing whether judge peace would have changed his mind if you took that into account but at the time of ruling on this motion the judge face was fully informed by the motions in this case as to what was at stake here rule in court he gives several reasons why he's denying the motion in this case and one of those reasons is that he would not have imposed a lower sentence and even before getting to prejudice our position is because there is miss representation in this representation in kwan was the counsel telling the defendant that deportation was not a serious possibility when it in fact was the misrepresentation in the quoted case the second circuit case that the sites was defense counsel telling the defendant that after the plea they can deal with the deportation consequences and even telling the defendant that the district court judge could make a recommendation on deportation that was plea that deportation might result from the conviction it's true that the defendant was not informed of all the details of how that might occur but i don't think that's necessary and it was in fact tru of the defense counsel asking for the extra day is completely a red herring in this context because as i think church hall pointed out a defendant is an aggravated felony whether or not the sentence for a  offense is one year or one year and one day so there was not even a trade off at that stage once the once the range is twelve to eighteen months in judge fees is sentencing within that range there's nothing lost to the defendant in terms of the immigration consequences by defense counsel asking for the extra day and that's the focus of defense counsel's declaration in this case and that's just it's mr directed because that's what  fee's wanted to impose eighteen months he said at the beginning of the sentencing hearing so we were trying to impose the correct sentence we were not seeking deportation he also would be correct to say that we were united states rea