this time of year rogers versus united states because we don't get past that point we won't be getting past any of the other points in this particular case it's true that his written plea agreement said that he in fact had discussed a waiver with his lawyer and all parts of the agreement with his attorney and understood them but at the oral play khalik way and even at the center saying absolutely nothing was said about his right to bring a collateral attack or his weight more and more properly his waiver of a right to bring a collateral attack against the convection on the outside a significant here this is a case where the circumstances that tend to indicate that he didn't really understand what he was waving and that included the right to collaterally attack unlike cases of like collage a like a lotto for example this is not a case in which the oral plea colloquy went through precisely what happened between the attorney and the client although nothing was said about one particular crime this was a case in which there was a very limited colloquy way during the oral change of proceedings about what in fact had occurred by client simply said that he had had enough time to speak with his attorney about the plea in fact that he first he said he understood portions of f and then generally he said all of that he understood but this is insufficient in this particular case i would argue simply because all of that came out way before anything was mentioned concerning most of his specific acts and certainly the right  appeal his conviction which was mentioned but yes that this case is not controlled by our recent decision in sanford feel united states because they are was the defendant's attempt to file this court decided the burden case which is cited in our reply brief which pretty much quite made clear that you have the obligation if you're waving a specific right to go over everything has always joined the collateral away for a check collateral challenge with the right to appeal in this case when the court actually addresses that in during the oral change the assistant united states attorney saying a big fat nothing so well in certain of the cases like to labo you had at least the defense at least the prosecutor mentioned right here  if i give you one hundred twenty months or less he says yeah i understand that and you greta give up your right to violent behaviors corpus petition along those lines to that he's going to say oh i didn't agree to that i mean even though it's in my plea agreement specifically  f there is an unconstitutionality and after initially charging him and having this plea agreement and i would argue that it is based on the initial apprehension that this person that mr sound travels at three prior felony conviction and may well be a case like united states against rosa otherwise we are stuck with plain review and plane air raid and i don't believe that my client you know is likely able to be the plane air standards which are extremely strange and so i can go on to other points i would like  saying that i think that this case despite that it was an eleven say one sleep arraignment should be subject to challenge that should not prevent my client from doing that and for that proposition i a decision of a published decision of the school but which essentially gave a broad interpretation to the concept of what what is based on a guideline  calculation and in this case it was clear that the reason why arent rogers was taking this agreement was because it was terrified of being found today at three or four island felonies and if the court has no further questions it please the court stephen climate for the united states the court should enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal the waiver provision in the plea agreement here was clear and unambiguous this is not a case like the burn case that counsel sites where there was a aspect of the issue on appeal that was not addressed whatsoever in the waiver provision there was no mention at all of the supervised release term which was the issue of burden here the plea agreement specifically said you waive your right to claim back in the plea agreement mr rogers with counsel confirmed that he'd read the plea agreement he understood the terms and he'd spoken to his attorney about i think it's also worth mentioning that this was not mr rogers first ro this is a man with extensive experience in the criminal justice system a very lengthy criminal record starting from the time he was eighteen through to the time of his convictions case so then we get to the change of plea hearing where defendant is now executed  the single mission here that counsel relies on is the judge didn't use the magic words collateral attack when he described a waiver or discussed a way there was no objection to that there was no  know we deal with that i think the way to deal with that is to remind district courts that they're supposed to do that but the district court's not the only party that that proceed the defense attorneys are in the prosecutors there too and perhaps both of them could also but it's clear that when the defense attorney doesn't object to that doesn't say judge you didn't tell my client about the other righties waving that plane here a review applies and look this court recognized that supremes court case more requires the plane to review applying to those circumstances and as you point out in your question your honor if that it's inconceivable to think that mr rogers had that correction  well most likely rocks my guess is that the attorney probably understood that his client was well aware of what he was waiving if they if the attorney was honest with the court and the client was honest with the court and they did discuss the terms of the pleading so i already  greatest interest in making sure this was clarified would be the prosecution i mean otherwise you're you're dealing with a possible twenty to fifty five what why is the prosecutor saying to the judge because these slips of the tongue can happen  this from personal experience there are some district court judges that don't take kindly to prosecutors telling them how to do you'll take like and there are times where that can be a deterrent to a prosecutor interrupting a judge's call  judge you didn't do this right you didn't do them that is a difficult thing for a prosecutor to do out there ways of doing it doesn't seem to me that the answer is we don't want to speak up or keep him it to speak up and i didn't mean to suggest that people are too timid to speak up not to but there are times not had this experience myself where i have been castigated in district take the castigation rather than not have an adequate guilty plea take it but that's that's another matter altogether i think pointing out under these circumstances you want to know what will happen requires is that the judge be convinced that the defendant understand his rights and if the if the judge knows and here the judge incorporated the plea agreement into the colloquy if the judge knows that the defendant has discussed a plea agreement with his attorney and has signed a waiver i believe that should be sufficient for the judge to be certain that the defendant understands that provision in the plea even if this court the defendant was not sentenced as an arm for a criminal the court didn't rely on the residual clause and johnson has no application the agreement in this case was for the defendant to plead guilty as a felon possession he pled nothing illegal about the sense in this case it was based solely on the felon in possession offense it was not based on here and so there's simply no basis here for the defendant to receive the relief that he seeks even if you