unconscionable level of involvement and i couldn't really see it from the transcript what do you think was the final part well when he endorses the strength of the government's case when the when when the defendant is before the court requesting issue could be there with a novice attorney who was not able to properly give him advice regarding the consequences of his plea this is a this is a situation where women judges to post to tell a defendant what he's looking at max but you're saying if you tell it if a judge tells the defendant what he's looking at max then the judge is pressuring him to accept a plea bargain so there's no way to proceed without for for well here is this wasn't simply the judge stating a maximum sentence this isn't a pre  the defendant and the judge regarding the exposure that he has as to his decision whether to accept or reject the government's offer here they were giving him a man a minimum mandatory of five years entirely illusory bargain that in my view and i think in the probation department view in its first or second bite at the apple in the pre sentence report so this is a this is a case where a defendant is basically deal's off the table and no continue as opposed to the continuance it doesn't even make the ruling regarding his request for a continuance whether the deals on or off the table which i can see even admit that under the case law he cannot keep the year mandatory minimum well we ended up with the was hit with his with the with the purity of the drugs used as a as a benchmark his career his career criminal offender  lying application his criminal history score all of that put him way beyond any any sixty months that he was looking at so you know that if that was some kind of some kind of  benefit i i'm it's an absolute loss to see what it was for him since the recommendation under the under the first plea bargain to the first pre sentence report was substantially higher than anything like sixteen months is one of that matter i mean there are many rule in plea bargaining that you should never pay retail head felt that you can't get a deal because they have you called there is a rule eleven does prevent the judge from indorsing  the concept that the deal is good or not and here we have the process of the prosecutors presentation that i think she had a very strong case against the defendant endorsed by the judge basically he says she has a very strong case against you and it's ok you don't have to plead i am going to be here anyway try cases and he did he well did he say the government has a strong case against her she says the government as she has a strong crosses that bright line rule and that bright line rule in this context requires disqualification and mr le tell you he did not sit on his rights in terms of raising the issue he brought the issue the court's attention disqualification there's a number of things working when you have a rule levon violate and it's very minute you said it was ok with the judge for the defendant to withdraw his plea but the judge would not volunteer to recuse himself that's correct line it being crossed we had essentially there isn't any case that i've read with the rule of in violation of this nature that it's ok for the judge to stay on and go ahead and sentence a defendant regardless of the guilt argument oh boy well you know it's not when you consider what we had in everything every sentencing issue as it related to calculation of guidelines was decided  and in fact he didn't even get the additional points for acceptance of responsibility which he should have been entitled to that he'd already candidly admitted his involvement in this case at the first plea and what what point did you ask the judge to recuse  basically after the plea came down he sent a letter to judge george requesting that he get new counsel at that point i accepted the case and appointed bassist i ordered the transcript discussed with my clients what i believed to be rule of an violations and he asked me to raise them in a motion which i promptly did so we did not was not a case like live yours where you have a guy who  ask you at what point did you ask the judge to recuse himself i was about may be two months into the case after a while after he entered a plea pending sentencing in about a month before his sentencing date after you've received a report suggesting what the sentence was going to be yes we had a pre sentence report that was received we also and you didn't like it and that's when you filed the motion to recuse i didn't like what i read in the in the in the colloquy with the judge that was the so but that was not the decision that was not critical to the situation to raise the issue it was the it was the record that existed i wasn't there at that at that hearing so we come back i do you want to plead a stand but the sentencing to be  is that what you're asking that's what i'm asking and i'm asking it be done in front of a different judge and that that be a random reassignment you made a motion to disqualify judge george if they get in and what was the and the judge says things like well you're finding you're not fine you've got to decide if you decide to plead i have to be here anyway i don't mind trying the case and we'll just go ahead and she will withdraw the offer that has some benefit for you and it's really up to you and she satisfied that she has a strong case and i guess she hasn't cried a case for two weeks she needs experienced i don't care what's the pressure to plead judges saying he's in different he's going to be coming to work in the morning whether words that the judge said trigger suspicion that the deal has some benefit to you he didn't say that i didn't ask show me the words words the erdos the words are cited in the in the  now thank your honour's mit please the court peter levitra united states the primary issue in this case is whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence for the court correctly calculated the advisory guideline range sentenced the appellant to a term that was seventy four months below the low end of that range and because the answer to each question is yes and because the district court's impartiality i don't know you're talking to your notes rather than to us the district court's impartiality cannot be reasonably questions your honor on this record did the main give less than as a guideline range yes he did your honor he got a sentence of seventy four months below the low end of the advisory guideline range and this case was heard shortly after the supreme court decided booker and judge george did a great job in assimilating that decision and almost anticipating this court's in bank decision and am a lean and understanding that the guidelines were advisory understanding that he still had to take them into account still had to calculate them correctly and apply them to the facts of the case within the overarching context of the sentencing goals of thirty five fifty three a that's precisely what the judge did but rather than apply those guidelines in a mechanistic stringent booker manner this court delved into this defendant's background his history exhorted him to turn his life around despite his own broken record of lawlessness criminality and violence and gave him a seventy four month winfall on the facts viewed against the  law this sentence was reasonable to address many of the issues that the court was posing to calif so for the appellant judge george i would submit did not do anything in this case to violate rule less than he did nothing that called his impartiality reasonably into question but even assuming for the sake of argument that he did judge george let the defendant withdraw defendant and you there's a judge have to approve the plea bargain the judge has to yes or no does he have to approve the plea bargain yes all right now if you're asked to approve the honor what's the what's the dividing line between asking questions to determine whether or not the plea bargain should be accepted are a violation of rule eleven i think the dividing line is crossed your honor in the sentence that the judge he's going to apply if the defendant pleads guilty in that instance the court is not merely engaging in a pre plea colloquy to insure him or herself of the legitimacy what do you have to participate in order in order to approve it i agree that the judge has to participate to the extent that the judge has to engage in a colloquy with the defendant judge has to familiarize him or herself with the contents of the plea agreement that just has to understand the applicable law and understand how the plea agreement stacks up against the maximum statutory term of imprisonment it can a judge say this is a good deal you better take it i think that that is getting significantly closer to the line your honor that rule but not over it let's assume it's over the judge says look this is a good deal you better taking yes your honor i believe that that is a rule eleven violation the other side says that's in essence what happened here when the judge indorse the prosecutor's statement that she had a good case i would respectfully disagree with that assessment your honor that's not what happened on the facts in this case judge george had the defendant there with counsel explained to the defendant that the government had a deal on the table for government as offer or it was master of the offer was permitted to say if it's not accepted here a calendar call it's going to be withdrawn and the judge merely said what the then assistant u s attorney on the case said namely that the she thinks she has a strong case the judge repeatedly advised the defendant that if he was concerned about a his then unknown criminal history calculation he was free not to plead and proceed to trial then the judge say the government has a good case against you i believe that that is not a rule eleven violation but that is more egregious than what happened in this case which was not agree just at all the other side says that what the judge said was tantamount to saying the government has a good case against you by parroting what the government said which is we have a good case against you i again respectfully disagree with that assessment your honor and i do not think that that constituted rule eleven violation  the strength of the government's case i think the record read in its totality shows that the court repeatedly advised the defendant that he was free to do whatever he wanted to that he could consult with his attorney he could take some time  if the judge in the judge's discretion did not accept the parties plea agreement we proceed to trial or the defendant always retain the option of pleading straight up to the indictment without the benefit of rule eleven then apparently applies only during the time of negotiation of a plea agreement after the plea agreement is entered into there's no  i can envision some circumstances your honor where after a plea agreement is struck and endorsed by a court the court could engage in conduct that constituted a violation of rule eleven but that did not happen in this mean example your honor at this moment i cannot think of any counsel let me ask you about the next step we've been talking mostly about whether there was a rule eleven violation but ordinarily the cure for that is to withdrawal of the plea was withdrawn so over the next step is must the judge who committed a rule eleven violation recused himself from subsequent participation in the case advocates that bloop brief cited wasn't about that at all it was about a judge who was on a board of trustees of a university or something that was a party and is there along one way or the other that says once a judge has participated in a recuse himself from further participation i'm not aware of any binding precedent that makes that point your honor however i believe that a judge who violated rule eleven would in that instance have given a clear in example of inability to be impartial and believe that failure committing a rule eleven violation may well constitute reversible e to sum up your honor this defendant has an unbroken history of criminality he received a sentence of seventy four months below the reasonable correctly calculated guideline range it was plainly in accord with the sentencing principles and better than thirty five fifty three a and the conviction and sentence should just thus be affirmed if if at the other side were to win and you were to lose we would vacate the sentence send it back case would be assigned to another judge could he say i don't see why judge george gave the guy seventy four month discount this is a real bad criminal i'm not going to get many discount and hammer him with a much tougher sentence that may well happen your hon indicate that i hear you ok thank you may please the court i'm going to tr