with the the option of having to do it she didn't want to do it she didn't want to clear her name she had an adequate defense and she tried to maintain that her attorney at that time said you know trust me the go through in detail you never return phone call she hardly counsel requested the withdraw at the withdrawal hearing she she took the stand and testify listen i didn't know what he was asking me to do i did you know what my consequences were going to be what are my can you not believe if if a defendant who has a right to a trial saying i didn't know i wanted a trial my lawyer you know pushed me into this and i want to draw i haven't seen like my present report i don't want to expose do i one she did not receive if if if if attorney robinson who was the previous attorney was going to limit the facts as the blakely when he gave the police it was limiting facts basically she was going to be convictions you know to whatever you know they were there was an issue of i believe what facts were needed to establish a factual basis that was the argument of i guess but when you know but basically what i want to have a go on i don't want to go on i do well well she wanted to be cleared right she wanted she knew what the maximum would be before he entered a plea correct she didn't have magnificently twenty years or forty years obviously that's not what she expected to get are just what i understand the wording but i still don't understand like what am i going to get a what's my benefit she didn't understand the time the blakely issue and what occurred is after ha the basis of her plea though it was was are the the withdrawal of her plea was saying that she was not fully made aware of the consequences of her plea what benefit she was going to derive and the fact that she wanted to go to trial but her attorney was not ready to go to trial he said i'm not going to lie she took the stance that her lawyer told her i'm not going to trial if you why would she lie for instance earlier how could the judge not believe  side of the story this was the first time she'd ever been in any type of criminal proceeding or ever witnessed a plea hearing and did not know what she was getting herself into did not know  basically she knew that she's there and she's there having to plead guilty to these things or that and she was and immediately afterwards she wished to withdraw her plea you know this was not something she wants she thought she was going to present somehow her version of things  apply the constitutional requirements to these guidelines basically the prove the facts either by admission or by or prove beyond a reasonable doubt and once you make those factors and there's and you reach that level of proof on the different enhancements then you take that basis as we say and then apply the thirty five fifty three factors and discuss whether it should be bumped up  there may have not been much change oh it was the amount of loss that was a huge a very huge incest issue if if the we made constant objections about the number of victims five hundred victims with five employees to the united states to their subsidiary and they're able to work here and eventually possibly get permanent residence if she has she how many people do this the government claim that all her applications for false we have this computer generated report these are all the applications she did clearly since she did some fraud and all of these cases of fraud and she's of attributed loss of two point five million dollars which we contested we even so peanut or requested that the government give us the from that basically misting hired attorneys to do the paperwork she had consultants for on other successful of these regional centers these companies that the immigration they were investing in and we said let's bring the investors in we claim they didn't know that would be something offered to reduce the amount of loss it was blocked by the government it was for the block by the court deny our party request to either compel them or to release the  es and addresses so that we could locate them if you know them to court that was denied so if the court had properly ruled on the objections or or made findings that ok we reviewed the government's documents specifically  and we found it to be persuasive or as it should have done allowed us to bring the victims actually wasn't even our burden but they should have allowed the victims to come in and question the victims did you know did you not know where you please the court eileen decker on the half of the united states first with respect to the withdrawal of the guilty plea the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion defendant did not provide anything or just reason for the burden of a fair and just standard is an understatement the court cannot believe the defendant did not believe her statements about deficient supposedly deficient performance by mr robinson did not believe any of her claims and to respond briefly to some of the arguments made here today about her counsel not being ready those facts were also disputed and the district court made explicit written findings on that mr robinson and i met extensively prior to trial we went over all the trial exhibits we had stipulations on trial exhibits his strategy as he said was he wanted us to move the trial and he wanted to know in all the imminence documents we had produced which ones the government was going to use as exhibits i have course wanted to know whether i needed to call a numerous number of custodians it was in our mutual interest we sat down we met about this mr robinson had all the government's trial exhibits prior to trial he was prepared he had a private investigator who helped him throughout the discovery period as this record indicates and frankly it's just contrary to everything in the evidence to say that  counsel was not ready for trial turning briefly to some of the other issues with respect to the please please hearing counsel transcript you can see portions where she said i don't know or something the court said well i'm not going to accept a plea if you don't know and he went over it again this was a very detailed hearing that the district court went through and by the time of the hearing to withdraw the guilty plea the court had the benefit of that hearing and all the answer she gave under oath to the court at that time in contrast to that the request to withdraw the guilty plea and  of that the judge was in a very unique position to say to judge this particular person i'm happy to cover more on that topic if the court has any questions but if there are no questions i move on to the the sentencing hearing with respect to the sentencing hearing and the sentencing briefings it was briefed all the issues in this case were briefed extensively hundreds of pages were provided to the court in exhibits and in documentary support the defense objected to nearly every single paragraph in the pre sentence report the government in response to provide at the court with a summary chart which is in the government's excerpt min applies and the court in its decisions has said interviewing this court needs to know what factors the district court relied on not just the conclusion but the facts that the court relied on and in this case because the district court did rely on the government's pleadings and that summary chart this court in reviewing the district court's decisions knows what the district court was relying on this was a very voluminous case and i don't think in this particular case i just record should be in a position of reciting defendant subjected to paragraph one i have reviewed the following exhibits and i find the hearing would take it and norma's amount of time i think in such circumstances at the time of this case the defendant used her own business addresses for most of the victims for almost all of the filings it was her own addresses that were using she had multiple addresses as the governments were the beginning at page three sixty nine and this exhibit shows all of the addresses that were used in that they traced back to the defendant the government did locate a number of witnesses who were going to be trial witnesses and we did know how to reach those the parties spent almost all of their time reflecting and arguing on this the guidelines and how the guidelines applied very little was added to the hort with respect to thirty five fifty three a factors however the court did say that it considered the factors and there are some factors that were provided in pre sentence report but not very many and in light of the amount of facts provided to the court the court's acknowledgment that it did consider it and by the way t uncover the fraud that it did last for years that millions of people were defrauded that there were hundreds of victims and mom years to investigate as the evidence in this case reflects and it took a lot of time to piece together the evidence to prove that a fraud had been committed against the united states and that the defendant when learning about the charges fled the united states on the heels of her brother and her sister in law who left days before she left that  new identity while in taiwan and only travels using that new identity it frankly is remarkable that she was found at all because she was traveling with that new identity the totality of this case indicates that one hundred eight month sentence was reasonable government made the argument to the district court that even if the immigrants were part of the scheme it was the united states government that was victimized by this fraud false documents was put were presented to the united states to the immigration service they did give benefits immigration it's in reliance on those false documents and materials that were provided so in fact whether or not the victim immigrants more in court at the sentencing hearing was really insignificant because it's charges in the  the second part of that request was or to compel them to come to court so i did make that request and that was rejected in writing first by the government and then when i requested from the court was also denied from the court i would like to address a couple points briefly for to ask me if there was any benefit for her plea she did not receive any any downward departure for acceptance of responsibility there was no plea agreement in this in this in this case there was simply an she pled to everything but then met the government indicated that she had helped her brother and sister or sister in law to be to file family based petitions which is something she does not cover they have their own attorneys they had their own separate she had nothing to do with it and she refused that there was no connection was away ever so she refused to plead guilty to that she contested most of the of the facts of the underlying cases as well but based on her attorney's persuasion she she did plead guilty tried to learn the facts but she did die hardly want a trial she requested that with new counsel she had a hearing she took the stand you but it's not a time it was the united states versus allison and hearst case where the where a similar situation she pled guilty there was a plea hearing actually was sentenced and then in the quote i do not accept pleas from people who claim they are not guilty and blame it on their attorneys i want to know whether you wish to withdraw your plea and and asked her that and at that time she said no you know prejudice to the government as they indicated they're ready for trial was minimal there were other counts that were unresolved that they could have proceeded to trial that is simply what she's asking today was give her the opportunity constitutionally to try her case and