fifty five proceeding especially since judge leon never defines what is now right and could simply have been excluding only later in effect in this case if this is not corrected it seems reasonably certain judge leon could say below that it was waived if there is if it is left in place after this appeal and you should vacated especially since mr miller himself may well end up may well end up on council finally in twenty two hundred and fifty five dollars there certainly seems no harm statement this statement when everyone agrees that it was flat wrong the cost benefit analysis here in favor of vacating what is conceded to be clear error turning out to the merits of the in effect in his claims on that issue there's ineffectiveness courts of the government's conclusions of law because he never adopted the government's proposed findings of fact he only adopted their conclusions of law the government's reef see ceased conflate those it's brief hypothetical objectively reasonable judge would do rather than looking at what this particular judge subjectively says he or she would i think that's right is an objectively would you do the same even if the government's attempt to incorporate the language of his briefs is allowed it isn't subject to any deference unless you agree with those findings were if the facts and if the facts don't support those conclusions the reasonably likely in the proceedings at the motions hearing the trial would have been different pressure his deficiencies are obvious let's let's suppose we agree with you with that for the sake of argument the that it is a an unreasonable search the only probable cause finding bloke was sick was based on what suits mr sailors suppose it knowledge was on april th but there was no evidence that he knew of criminal april th the only evidence was that he interviewed people he'd investigated not what he knew on april th any probable cause with based on pure speculation by judge leon and it's also worth feuded by the fact that they didn't arrest mr miller on charges one charge or the agents charge one and then it's added to later that's so that it you agree that's a typical normally it's not every single charge that's available charge you're correct your honor they could arrest him on other charges they didn't arrest him on this nor did they go in mr imagine it was clearly they only didn't for the search or for the arrest also the probable cause requirement depends on the automobile exception applying here this is the automobile exception car they seized the boxes and then three weeks later they got search warrant and that's an additional issue even if the search and the seizure was appropriate or executing search of the car in the seizure of the boxes was appropriate the search of the boxes themselves the contents three weeks to get the warrant so that alone is a separate basis to suppress finally let me just say that there is a reason to believe the suppression would have affected the trial their claim that it wouldn't made a difference as europe irreconcilably judge leon's playing that the government's case was built on the same evidence his later assertion speirs speculation that other evidence was likely duplicative was just pure speculation and there's no basis for there was no no effort to try to show whe puzzled by barking on this tree so long mohamed or the proposition that you're speaking about quotes wigan's supreme court opinion from quite a while ago so it's not as if mohammad established anything new and in the same opinion which mohammad frights that it cites the standard rule that standard formulation there is a reasonable probability that but for councils and professional errors the result of the proceedings would have been different pain versus stands very cording strictly and judge leon cites exactly the same on page eleven of his opinion so i really don't understand the argument that either there's something new here or that judge clarify it it just restated it in different words and i and the judge cited the standard strickland formulation and and and because there is no difference between the two i don't understand how you can claim he applied the wrong standard well i judge i guess what i would say it was a clarification in this respect the results of the proceeding would have been different as mohammad now explains if a juror if you could so doubt in the one that is a clear the haitian as if there was a difference in one juror there wouldn't be a conviction that's right that is exactly the same thing as saying that there be a different outcome to the proceedings i don't think we've did there was no fine no ineffectiveness finding well no ineffectiveness funny could ever be possible if that's the standard nor is that honoring a council council's choices when you say that the standard is what decision klein did not want a speedy trial that his client had a number of documents he wanted to investigate and he could only look at them at the d c jail efficiently and that they  trial but there's a distinction between what do you want a speedy trial and do you want a speedy trial dismissal and the question is he did he ever know he had a white would dismiss when the answer to that is no surprise there's a product jeffers testified to was that he had he and his client had discussed that that he wanted to stay engaged in the d c jail that he had work to do on preparing to be at work that jeffers had to do to help him prepare when jeffords was asked about what the consequences of have having asked for a dismissal would be he said it would have been unfair to the court to have gone all along asking for delays and not going any other way and it wouldn't have made any difference because in his experience the u s attorney's office would have immediately indicted he would not have been moved back to maryland he would have been immediately re indicted and would have been without prejudice so i guess i don't see anything deficient in that kind of analysis i think it's deficient it's i think it's obviously deficient criminal lawyer is unaware of his client's right to get white to get  right judge that maybe jefferson is mine even though you didn't actually know that it was especially a couple of if if it occurred then and here would be the benefits and costs but i guess the point i'm trying to make is that the cost benefit so why did he have gotten a new suppression hearing because the excluded evidence could have been presented and then he would have seen any and he could have proceeded based on that excluded other the value that would be the result that would be if he merits ok right and i think that i was trying to establish that before but i don't want to go back into that but number three there's also a possibility he could have gotten and i think probably would have gotten a dismissal with prejudice and in a minimum he would preserve that issue for appeal and he never got the right to or you want to appeal that it should have been dismissed with prejudice number four which is so so so the nd point would depend on your also showing prejudice with respect to the quicker if that would happen there's tangible prejudice because my client would have been done with this federal case sooner and he could have earned the maryland state g o p prints that he was denied because this case lingered the only reason to get the  counsel he's entitled effective assistance jeffers admits he should have sought this and there's no harm in sending it back that would be consistent with strickland in the idea a defendant shouldn't spend an extra year in prison simply because of his attorneys here on the maryland jail credits judge leon remarkably held that an extra year in jail is here relevant he said he was only considering the federal sentence but that's not true he gave it consecutive sense and therefore he couldn't only look at the federal sentence he had to consider the combined sentence that maryland time was thus relevant and it was only indeterminate because jefferson jefferson never took the time to work the calculations even now he candidly admits he should have this  dollars and eight dollars on his merrill remaining time on his maryland son's right he had a twelve years sentence judge not but he had already served four years of it at the sentencing colloquy and judge as i understand he has fo full credit for everything and five because he wasn't going to get the extra year you would say was five days you know i guess that's right he wasn't going to be eligible for for four because he was going to get he was no longer eligible get out you know i was still in determine that it was entitle to no difference it shouldn't be adopted by this court reviewing it to know both that's not what you would do i submit and it's not a just decision in this page should be remanded for what i submit will be a relatively short that that application of strickland might apply to the st is his decision that he would have been granted a speedy trial like dismissal without prejudice which the defendant does not challenge on appeal he makes no argument on appeal that that was an unreasonable decision that no reasonable judge would have reached that decision and that's the standard the standard is not to know what with this court do but under agnew the standard is what would it have been unreasonable for the court below to reach a different result the nd is on sentencing judge leon's decision that had he learned that the defendant lost the potential to earn a year of credits off his maryland sentence because he it's hell for trial in d c whether he would have reduced his sentence can commiserate lee and he said no it would have made a decision and there i think that adding the standard gov tails with of them think that i disagree that it is looking at it as though it's a federal eighteen year sentence at the time he sentenced miller for his conduct in the federal case judge leon knew that maryland of authorities would have considered miller's loss of these potential good time credits when just deciding whether to parole him after eight years or parole him after twelve years judge leon said this is a maryland issue can there's no evidence that i'm aware of your honor we know that the at the time of of miller sentencing mr jefferson pointed out to judge leon that miller face an indeterminate eight to twelve year sentence and made strenuous arguments about why the federal sentence should run concurrently with judge leon rejected those arguments he said he confronted a completely different argument  in the in the actual hearing said let's be clear and judge this year is to play an extra year of serve time that is caused by this case by him being written to get it in and being in federal custody instead of s enormous consequence and they not affect the outcome of the battle but they are important in terms of lives lost and things like that or years served in prison in this case judge lam didn't say this is specific amount of time for the conduct before me seventeen years which is exactly what judge leon did here he said i'm sort of disregarding the proposition that those seventeen years had in effect an a because the time due to his incarceration with respect to this level that and included the extreme here in maryland that they only had an out on if maryland also chose to ignore that effect  when deciding whether to release another after eight years or to hold him for the entire twelve as we know maryland ultimately held him for the entire twelve but judge liao could not have known that at the time him what was this gu i don't remember the exact got long range on or church grounds guideline written as he calculated it was different from the pre sentence report i do remember that the two hundred and four month sentence he gave was in the middle of the guideline range that he ultimately calculated and except that it was run consecutive and i think when it was run consecutive it was no longer a guideline since it was within the range but it was run consecutive to the twelve year maryland senate so in fact it was not a seventeen year sentence we're talking about a combined twenty nine year sentence i don't white collar case with five hundred thousand dollars in fraud and extraordinary senators finally i just want to say that the government's point that they made up here that the notion that the maryland parole board maybe could have fixed this federal problem and taken this into account obviously is not an answer and it in fact they did not because as government counsel conceded he served the full twelve