a side let me just before either counsel starts arguing just tell you that the panel is well aware of the fact that the question of whether attempted present yes i am going on a good morning so i understand we have ten minutes for you with three minutes set aside for rebuttal is that right yes so please proceed is not a crime of violence so for mr had dago has a high school education these issues needed to be perfectly stablish to him so he would and clear to proceed for i think i interrupted you and of course of any point during your argument if any of the other judges would like to jump in they are welcome to do so so thank you for your patience and please do proceed ok thank you a heightened focus on the language at his plea proceeding because from our perspective there wasn't a lot of discussion with mr hood although based on to determine his understanding of what he was pleading guilty to and so what we're looking at is the language of the superseding indictment the plea agreement and the language that was used by the court at the plea proceeding in me a plea in the i'm sorry the superseding indictment as well as at the plea proceeding for count two the question was whether appellant was guilty and i'm going to leave out the thing and the names of the people he was involved with must have been reading from the superseding indictment which uses the same language and so all the government would like to distinguish that this is a conspiracy and attempt to forcibly still property the court should remove him for the district court to explore this issue in the st instance since the district court primarily relied on the appellate waiver in plea agreement and if there are aren't any further question cases in the circuit pending so i i will get over that part of the argument in our briefs i think we even mentioned a few of those cases and one of our footnotes coming out of our district there are at least two but moving to what the was in this case we know that attempted have that robbery and extortion were the predicate for three primary reasons versus the indictment on page seventeen of the appendix it clearly charged with his i'll go with perpetrating quote and attempting to perpetrate a robbery so that is pretty clear on its own in the indictment it does not say conspiracy in attempt additionally the plea agreement which on it though to really would be dispositive here is that the firearm discharged quote during a conspiracy and attempt to forcibly steal property and extort assets and quote and that's some page ninety three dollars of the appendix and it even goes further and specifies that the discharge occurred quote during a robbery attempt and quote this is the only spot in the record where it says conspiracy in attempt it doesn't as far as i can tell it doesn't appear anywhere before anywhere after nobody interjected nobody objected nobody mentioned it  clear as to what the predicates were and even the plea colloquy the government was clear saying that it would prove quote attempted robbery and murder which would quote account for the discharge of the firearm as a lesser included offense and  page forty five at the time that he was gregory let me let me just pause you right there tonight and as i've done with the other counsel today let me inquire whether judge cashman has any questions you'd like to address do you i have agreements and i can't keeps track track of which district judge your district generally not in the appeal waivers have waivers that go towards the conviction and only go towards a sentence or is that just a case by case  apostrophe and it was just mistranscribed but regardless of whether we would i assume your argument is as i understand it is even if there is no scribner's or the context of the other things and the other statements for characterization of your argument yes that's correct i've known for the questions feel free to address whatever else you'd like with your remaining time and the other judges of course should chill free to jump in with any questions that they have sure i'm just about by of that even if david got rid of the conspiracy the crime of violence there are still valid predicate and then i would just rely on our priest as to the attempted robbery argument court must find that the defendant understood what he was pleading guilty to and because there is the inconsistency in the language it has not been established that he understood that he was pleading guilty to conspiracy not a lot of there was was not any question of him what he did how he was involved or anything like that that would help the government's argument without that our position is that the