well here the next case united states churches call a defense counsel conduct in pressuring his client into surrendering his th amendment right to trial and accepting a guilty plea he otherwise was not inclined to accept can ever be deemed reasonable pursuant to strict with the washington counsel that argued the motion in the court below waive that claim i don't believe that the case law supports that i think that what the record below indicates was the district court indicated a very obvious disdain for the ineffectiveness argument and counsel did indeed walk away from it during the well let's pretty strong language you know just  clear to me but them below i believe your honor what is less clear is whether that is whether the case law says that with waiving that argument in the context of a hearing means that it can't be raised i believe the case  is ambiguous with respect to that but what i will say your honor is in some ways i think the issue the reason i said it's opposite sides of the same coin is in this case the argument regarding ineffectiveness of defense counsel is part and parcel of the primary argument in the motion to withdraw the guilty plea the motions appeal is that defense counsel was counsel's argument in that form this is not a situation where it's about actual innocence and so whether or not counsel was effective in orchestrating this deal for the defendant the question is whether counsel's actions rendered the plea involuntary if the court finds that and i believe there's ample evidence that that is what occurred here then the only question is might not the defendant of accepted the plea but for that coercion and i believe we just ram it we have demonstrated that as well so part of the question that the court is posing to the festival of counsel i think underscores why it is that not only the government misconstrues or argument but that the district court in adopting the government's arguments abused its distress discretion another error that the government makes in its arguments and that i believe was also in error adopted by the district court is talking about these promises being collateral defended appellant is not contesting the fact that whether or not he got that he did business may have been a collateral consequences of a plea but again that is a red herring the issue before this court an issue that was before the district court had the district court properly weigh the arguments was what is whether what counsel was doing by making these outlandish claims that because of his bravado and his reputation as prowess defendant pleads guilty to save his dealership claims that was by the way or completely corroborated by pages a seventy seven through eighty nine of the appendix and which he doubled down on those claims once mr vitale indicates that he wants to be akin to if you have a situation where a defendant in a criminal case fall behind on his bill to a defense one you have won then it just takes you to a defense attorney let's say represents a lot of organized crime figures and that defense attorney says you know what you're in the hold me for a couple one hundred thousand dollars and unless you plead guilty if you insist on making me go to this trial without getting paid one of my other clients is going to do harm to your family now that by the way nothing like that happened here but that harm would not be a direct consequence of the guilty plea such is the amount of jail the defendant was looking at and so forth but it certainly would be enough to overcome someone's will and that is a and do not reflect any and do not point to any abuse of discretion on the question of the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and on the question of an effect of to sort of counsel nor was there any plain error and find imposed by the court answer is simply no in the record makes it clear that the district court considered each and every factor identified by this court's precedents in denying that motion considered in the lengthy oral argument we would point to that transcript as we did in our  very lengthy considered and deliberate oral argument where she heard lengthy arguments from both the government and mr barak out on the question of whether he should be able to withdraw his plea for the very reasons he's been arguing to this court today things about an agreement with g m things about seeing and hearing wiretaps all of those arguments were made considered by the court and they were rejected and it was not an abuse of discretion to do so in the record i think makes that clear on the question of timing apart by this court the court discussed that with bike house counsel addressed that talked about his his claims of innocence innocence at length and weighed each of those factors to reject his his his arguments and followed this court's precedent that a defendant sworn statements that he in fact committed the crime with which he's charged are often enough on their faith to deny a motion such as mr by couch and that's what happened the low and that's reflected in the district court's hearing the fact that the district court took a break came back after recess and direct the parties to mr by counsel allocution and then the district court's words and it was not an abuse of discretion to deny that motion below now on the in effect with a speck of assistance of counsel claim that's for this court we agree that that with the question that two different occasions the district judge asked counsel directly are you making an infected to the counsel argument and claim to i need to make a finding under strickland and the answer to that was very clearly no  said no case for the proposition raised in his argument a few minutes ago that he could waive such an argument before the district court and then raise that again here on appeal that that would make it impossible for a district the question of in effect of the counsel for fear of them raising it for the st time on appeal so for all those reasons it's very different i think from the cases that are by campsites which are questions of does a plea agreements waiver three motion making in effect that the the council claims using that vehicle and that this court is noted it is appropriate at that stage for the district judge to address those claims at that stage in the district court with the benefit of new coun and when when presented with the opportunity to advance them and have and have the judge make all of the findings factually and legally the way that he said i did i'm not asking for that release so for those reasons those arguments are way  conceded in its reply page nine that it's entirely collateral that question under this court's holding and input the on the question the fee dispute as they conceded at the hearing while the back and forth that happened with counsel and the former client is certainly colorful language certainly and what he presented the district judge all of that happened after he chose to plead guilty it's a swear to tell the truth and admit all of that conduct post dated the plea and it has no bearing on the questions that were before the court in the end the district judge again considered those and made that finding that if it did post state everything that was before the court and then finally add to the to the wires are called as as former counsel's affidavit makes clear those tapes were presented to mr by cow they were offered to be played to a mockery and he declined and ultimately on each of these there simply isn't prejudice the defendant as he stated in his brief found the offer that his former counsel got him the plea offer to be a wonderful offer that was zero to six months so we don't think that there's any prejudice that  any of the arguments he makes particularly given the fact that that generous plea could have been withdrawn by the government at any time it was in his interest to take that plea and to take it then before trial and so your honour's are no questions as to as to that part of the argument i would just say at the final point mr backhaul makes on the fine the record again does not support his his arguments the district judge below made it very clear that she was imposing a fine to reflect the seriousness of the offense here which was which was very serious that the government argued at that thing and the district judge found she chose not to incarcerate mr by cow she chose to put him on community confinement and that the district judge characterized that it was an expedient lenient sentence and so to make up for that the district judge made clear at sentencing that doubling the amount and imposing the fine that the district court did that that was going to be necessary to reflect the seriousness of the emphasize again to the members of the court the issue here is of course of tactics the promises the product the forced ignorance and inducements the same type of things that this court indeed heard these tapes why there was a letter attached the motion seventy seven page seventy seven or bendix from mr pike out associate melissa irwin which there's no fair reading of that letter other than indicating that mr pike how was receiving these leave much to the imagination one thing he does lead to the imagination is any indication that he sat down and he reviewed these tapes with mr bike out which is what is more suspect is that mr  substantive pages of that affidavit talking about how embarrassing and how damaging the tapes were and how worried my client was about what would come out in those states without ever saying that he played them or listen to them with mr b cal and seemingly omits the fact that as the government to their credit concedes in their brief the they moved in limon a month earlier to never use those tapes and as the government characterizes them in their in their briefs they a relevant and not going to be used there is no way that if the district court had applied scrutiny to be used to what was included in our motion rather than just giving credit to the robotic incantations of the plea agreement coercion simply the charge well that's simply not true the letters that mr rolle references regarding the fee disputes the letters regarding threats and promises and handshake deals true they occurred after mr buy a cow was in the process look at those letters in a vacuum they substantiate the claims that mr bike how was making as brave in fact one of the most threatening letters from mr bell and your didn't was to me in an e mail where he said he essentially that he's going to ruin cal by coming out with the sensational allegations and allusions to these power more tapes that e mail it was written two days after mr by fell scientists affidavit as part of this motion to withdraw which mr belin you would not have been aware of at that point so we use this any allegation that mr bike out was inventing these facts or using what mr belin sure was doing post plea to to add credence to his motion to withdraw and we have your argument thank you very much the court will reserve decision the remaining case