drug offender with a minor role who is now facing perhaps for him a life sentence because of the government's breach of the plea agreement the undisputed procedural facts are robert jackson entered into a plea agreement in which the government agreed that he admits first for progress as a safety valve under eighteen u s c three five five three ask including the part where he was where they admitted that he was not an organizer a leader or a manager he met with the government he gave a truthful proffer statement on june third and of the hearing on june thirtieth he appeared before the of law because the government already made it that he did testify truthfully at some point before the sentencing hearing then it's my position that under the translate of the law with likely an analyze that he would be entitled to go back and have a which is substantial it's almost four years difference for mr jackson it definitely has a case that's outside the heartland when he came back for sentencing as a temper cysteine he believed he was coming in for downward departure is based on substantial health problems and by its breach and was an obvious breach challenge the integrity of the judicial system and mr jackson really deserves to be recognising this one if you can as many opportunities as he needed so he received another opportunity where he came into our office and prospered and then the judge allowed him to get on the stand testifying in court in front of the judge herself so it wasn't the judge who sending representation clique agreement before he made proffer so i did that gave him a license to get on the stand and tell the truth albeit the government was really argument after he testified but as i said that was not the only point on which he courts found several other reasons why that if she could simply not find the truth and it was being truthful with the government and i think only the clear air standard it would be difficult to say that she made a mistake after she had a chance to observe and in apply that that would apply that he has come in and talk to us but i understand that he is not there has not been a five k issue anymore because he's not going to be testifying the court all right so let me make sure i understand the government's position if you ha filed something before today it is agreed he is eligible for the safety valve that got sent five k one letter the government correct what happened was mr jackson's attorneys decided they have the safety valve what leader in a manager and judge if the judge believes you know that that might be substantial but the government had that information about what he did with his brother in north carolina south carolina at the time that th one of the parties may admit factually that that all five elements are met and then facts come into the record to tell the district just to defend it isn't being truthful isn't that the point at which the safety valve comes into play that  if for instance the judge had then held a hearing on september i mean on june thirtieth and there's been a hearing like ok now i want you to take the standard something that any practical level the judge would have taken the government's recommendation because the judge isn't there they don't have a hearing every time someone makes a profit to the government the government comes in and says yes we thinking he testified truthfully to us and as a practical matter the judge relies on that now if there's a factual issue that comes in where the government come in said  we don't think he was truthful here they're honest and it's not binding but pardon it's not binding on the court but in this case it is well whether to continue was to look into the departure for health reasons yes and that's when the they they talked about having had carrick in a courier and carrying drugs into the country when they gave the first statement and on the stand he denied having any information on having any drugs at all that wasn't truthful that's for purposes of the safety valve he had at one point in time truthfully given information where is absolutely no doubt mr jackson gave a complete truthful statements as outlined in the government's brief of everything he laid out he was a low level person in this particular transaction he had almost nothing to do with it except for one possible phone call and he told them everything he was supposed to he's attorney came to the hearing and at that point in time the government said yes we believe he's told us everything truthful it's not required it's a safety valve of the information something that you can would talk to the government and then the government would decide whether that hurt that properly gave the information was truthful or not yes and once the government made that representation to the court