here with significant advantages in that but the advantage is mainly that people who are far smarter than me have already reviewed the record in this case and have already determined that the district court or in this case of course misled and that the district court conveyed inaccurate information to mr williams court order didn't give equivocate on that point the court order didn't say that look that word or stablish was only that there was a non frivolous we need to stop talking about it and start talking about what happened in the district court yesterday understand mr wood during when mr wells was pleading guilty mr williams but advised at the district court first  that he understood that he would be facing a mandatory life sentence and he then advised that this report that because he understood that he would be facing a mandatory life sentence he instructed his lawyer to go ahead and negotiate this plea agreement after he made that statement he he advised the district or that he did not distribute five hundred grams or more of methamphetamine as the fire a hundred tell you what my problem is with your argument we are here on planar review there was no request to withdraw cleon the district court ruling by judge and why are we bound to believe given the standard of review that the defendant misunderstood they sentences he was facing have the judge sad that if the allegations of the indict who were proved then the mandatory sentence was life and that was true yes the judge also said that if a different quantity was proved the sentence could be lower right so there is some potential ambiguity about what williams understood given that we're on plain error review when williams has say never testified about what he understood life five separate times it wasn't until the colloquy between the district court and and mr williams had concluded that the district court mentioned almost in passing after it was brought up to him that had he had mr williams not not been convicted of distributing five hundred kilograms or more the mandatory sentence good but i am perfectly willing to believe that williams might have been confused by that koll but we're here on planar review don't we have to have conclusive proof that he misunderstood what was going on it's hard to find conclusive proof because the judge said if there is a lower quantity proof then there is a lower sentence how do we get over the plain error threshold of review that's the i'm i'm just wondering if you aren't saying or would have to show that every reasonable person would have misunderstood what the sentence could be and that's a very hard thing to show your honor i think that  afraid fact that he doesn't even have a high school education have to having heard a district court and visors him along with counsel five times that you're facing the mandatory life sentence that would have been i can't imagine a more impressive statement to make to a defendant other than you are facing a mandatory life sentence when he was facing a mandatory life sentence if the prosecution proved its charge that was going to be the sente yes and if the district judge had emphasized that strongly i assume you would be contending that the district judge didn't really pounded on to him that if he didn't strike a good plea deal he was going to jail for life if the prosecution proved its case convicted of what he can't concede the actual meat mandatory sentence had mr williams been been convicted of what he had conceded would have only been ten years in prison and his guideline range even according to the government would have been f favorable than a minute let me ask my question in still a different way what relief are you requesting in this case your brief ends with the conclusion that we are you're asking us to hold necessary pursuant to the court's order i have discussed with just to answer your finish a question i have met with mr williams twice in person at the prison where he's been how he has advised me that he he wants to withdraw certainly move let me explain why or why i believe that that may be an appropriate thing to do to there is some ambiguity here but it's an impulse and it's not there isn't just some ambiguity it's an important  especially after that the fence has said that and said well because i'm facing a mandatory life sentence i instructed my defense counsel to negotiate a plea agreement but in fact given what mr williams pled guilty to he wasn't facing a mandatory life sentence he was only facing but that's after all the concessions by the government as i understand the chronology here and stipulations terrorists there were negotiations that's what happens but as originally charged had been several years less than the mandatory twenty years twenty year sentence that he agreed to after the government made certain concessions or stipulations about what it could prove right if you know what it was willing to give  good morning honors me please the court sec of phillips and we have the united states your honor is absolutely correct that we are here in plain error and that there is nothing no evidence in the record to suggest that he misunderstood sensing exposure when some is pleading guilty there they're doing two things one is that they are should be knowledgeable about the risk that they're undertaking when they're actually cleaving here if this was a sea agreement so that there can be no question that he knew the risk was that he would get twenty years or that that the police would be withdrawn the second is that they should be knowledgeable about the risk that is mitigated when they are pleading guilty and in this case the  risk that he that was being mitigated was specifically the potential for mandatory life sentence and if on the on the low end it was attend a life that was both of those things were mentioned as the court stated we would be up but we would be concerned if a district court having a case that had the potential mandatory life sentence didn't stress that that was a possibility and so in this case both of those things happened i would say that even beyond the question of whether there is no evidence to suggest that he misunderstood there's quite frankly evidence to the contrary and evidence that suggest absolutely would have accepted this very deal had the slight deviation from rule haven't been corrected and that is if you look to the record in the change of plea the p s r the sensing  met with the court without the government there he said my decision is clear i should go forward and then countries that are with that he said after the sensing when he was speaking he said i never wanted to drag this case out and fight it he was going to accept this twenty years and it's clear that they were the government was not offering anything less than twenty years because it believed in its evidence and lastly it's just a numbers game it's implausible to believe that somebody would reject twenty year plea when at best if his theory of the case is for going he would likely face a guidelines range of two hundred ten to sixty two months and up the high and would face the risk mandatory