threat to your client didn't he he did ok in my concern is precisely what the law imposes on the district court is a duty to ask probing questions to delve deeply into any potential honestly were the judges have learned that he didn't discover from there because it's pretty clear to me from reading the record that there was simply a disagreement between your client and the former lawyer about whether or not he's going to plead guilty district judge need here in order to reverse his ruling and determined that there was such a breakdown between lawyer and client that the warrior was no longer effectively representing the attorney's perceived confidence see as well as the client's perceived sanity but second there were findings that more predicated on sufficient facts not to be clear i could make very detailed findings about who will win the democratic primaries tomorrow dog credentials if you will and a client who simply wanted to plead guilty there was one statement i'm not known for pleading mr you know for pleading people to the face it sounds to me that i don't want my reputation and that i roll over too easily to get out in the community the problem is that's easy to say if you could say that's what you sat in the second problem with that is that there was no evidence in the record that that's the truth when the motion was made to the district court and it was supposedly the day before trial and perhaps most troubling that this very same attorney abandon this client on a feel for lack of a better word and i don't mean to be rich or if except that for a year that attorney did nothing despite repeated orders from this court to that that's what his attorney said at the sentencing hearing inquiry with your client about the nature of the offer and the alternative of going to trial or pleading straight out and she responds yes all that has happened i've handled hundreds of clients she's not a different client she specifically i dress well you are i suppose it could be construed as ambiguous if it weren't circulated as i want to plead guilty but i don't want the five year mandatory minimum but here's the part that confuses me which clearly are we talking about are we talking about the hearing  because he's pleading to leave and i think that contains in the end if he does that he gets a mandatory minimum and he keeps saying i want to apologize to your honor i will never make this mistake again i want to go back to my family that's was a breakdown in communications and to look at that question you have to look at the entire record and all of the information that's very high and at the sentencing hearing that's the place in the record where we have the most extensive discussion of what held and this court said the following while the trial judge my it has made a more thorough inquiry into the substance of the conflict the clinton's description of the problem and the judge's own observations provided a sufficient basis for reaching an informed did make findings including based on his own observations me all of these would have been better than what difference would it make which is sort of a leading question or a sort of up a question that invites a non responsive answer to what's at issue and looking at the colloquy at the plea where the history of the p a hole in their case against a codefendant and for that reason they were unable to enter into a plea that would have allowed him eligibility for five when departure that's the government's position on appeal i think the record undermines confidence in the truth of that statement at the sentencing hearing there was considerable disagreement between the u s attorney's office and mr obama says attorney as to what efforts were made and what exactly was off property what could have going to get him very far unless he's willing to testify in a way that helps the government otherwise his admissions to border patrol and his arrest him on the five year mandatory minimum and he lost the motion