mr do with expediency that has to do with could you explain please for me the nature of the conflict and i'm not going to accept your assumption that there is no and the conflict is they didn't tell him to turn himself in no your honor and i understood your question perfectly and there is a difference between a potential but an actual this is right the conflict in purposes and for trial purposes in this case so what is the actual call for these lawyers knew from the sit in their minds as the government pointed out in that famous e mail that that you don't have to take my word for it or my advocates are doing it at the time of the meeting all of the lawyers the codefendant had already agreed he was cooperating with the government i don't believe so so what's the issue the issue was simple at the time that they met but at the time they were both arrested if you remember the e mail from the prosecutor government that there was a natural conflict week suggested to court that based on that e mail and the rest of the record i think you know in isolation this was going on from the very beginning of plea negotiations he would say in a conflict how do actual conflict affect the performance of these two attorneys that question for two reasons number one the govern lawyers that are actually conflicted and the local council they are legally as you know one person the law treats those people those three separate individuals as one person seconded the plea agreement that they started negotiate this is the  agency theory and the sixth amendment on my dad begins to call expired to himself to the prosecutor has the law porter become a lawyer so how does that conflict affect them of analysis here we see it as very simple there with us for assume that there is a waiver of appeal and that this court will enforce it ok to make that assumption and know you don't want to u what is left of your case is there anything lath that you would be free to present in a twenty to fifty five proceeding is there is what is that  be ineffective assistance of counsel for purposes of direct review if the bay not preclude a twenty two fifty five that's an issue that's not before us i would not concede that point but i can see the court's looking at that we maintain appeal i ask you to draw a distinction between and the fact is his stance crying and a conflict of interests crime there are two separate issues the ineffect manner in which they handled this entire case we maintained that from the very beginning when the prosecutor was faced with the division internal division between the lawyers he should have gone to the court needed me and said your honor i want to know who speaks for this conflict of interest if it had been a contested hearing they didn't the government said ruby an actual conflict of interest because these witness we have been called to testify risk or times come from to have the united states it's the government's position that in this conflict of interest claim where you see shows a deficiency he doesn't he's actually trying to step back say relays to a plea agreement where our pretty offer which in this case an abundance of caution presented to the court the issue of potential conflict because when it came for sentencing it doesn't relate to when the change of plea or anything else it only relates to when he came for that plea agreement was rejected everything else in this case if you look at the moment the government's motion actually stated that there when they were in the process of negotiating it was around that time when the  very heavy handed and it's intended to accomplish something i'm not certain mr hand was accurate that there was a potential conflict  conspiracy you're meeting with them to basically tell them and agree that they're not going to cooperate in then later you look for someone in court and the other one is going to be your witness that is a classic situation that any criminal defense lawyer would be very cautious but defend a defendant and gauges knowingly engages three different lawyers to expect the government to good in the court and say you have to disrupt the choice of the defendant as to who represents him i just don't think that that's a duty on the part of the government and it would cause some constitutional problems of