the the the court is there is the restitution order ordered by the the district court in this case came five hundred twenty one days after sentencing appellants are seeking that now let me address the first argue first they were sentenced the the law requires that any restitution order be ordered at the time of sentencing and it allows for for restitution to be order after that but only under certain limited circumstances in other words the statute three hundred and eighteen u s c three sixty five three six six four requires that any of it rested if only if restitution is not clear at the time of sentencing that it may be ordered ninety days thereafter but and the supreme court has set any order beyond that can only be up held if the court made clear at the time of sentencing that it would order restitution leaving only the issue you of how much to be determined that is exactly what did not happen here then and how did that not happen  not make that clear well and in fact he admitted there was the he said at the time of sentencing the defendants to a challenged not only the amount of sentencing aside the amount of restitution but whether the the one institution got back to the governments and admitted that they did not suffer any losses the other ones didn't even get back how do you deal with the fact that you know under the statute mentor victims restitution act restitution is mandated and then you have the district court on the record saying the only thing remaining are was the restitution figure the the that it's two things your honor the restitution is only mandated where it was directly in proximity caused by the defendant's conduct in other words second of all you're bigger but a grasping upon one instance in the court's transcript where the court used the word figure to refer to the the issue restitution but it in context that is not making  clear that he was going to the district court was going to grant rest of order restitution but are rather the court the court said at the end of the hearing the court said there's still the cessna two shouldn't issue of restitution unresolved the language in court was he found the whole issue to be convoluted and difficult to follow in other words by his his his words his or her words are exactly the opposite of making clear that he was going to here it's important to see the context of this prior to the sentencing hearing defendants had should and it's a chip which challenge not only the amount of the loss but who the loss was in other words whether there were any victims to begin with and the defendants challenge that prior to sentencing challenge it at sentencing and then the court requested  preferred on that issue and the defendant's challenge that in the sub in this in the post hearing or the briefing in other words the fencer saint who the victims because in order to go to in order to  order restitution the the court has to identify who those victims are and the evidence was was was clear the lenders making these loans admitting it and the government admitted suffered no losses and so the government said well yeah but somebody somewhere ordered suffered a loss because this loan was packaged with others appalled sliced and diced sold off to in statute mandates it be ordered at the time of sentencing it allows for the issue to to extend beyond that point but only where the district court makes it clear otherwise have please the court serena has hargrove on behalf of the united states statutory mandate the mandatory victim restitution i required restitution to all victims when there are victims yes your honor and they challenging whether or not they were really vic they were your honor they were so although they did acknowledge in on loan for that they had misrepresented their income and that that was material that it mattered for the bank there was expert testimony provided that although yes the banks sold these loans pulled them and sold them that the end of the last person stuck holding that mortgage the downstream grain exactly and the ninth circuit precedent really as early as one thousand nine hundred one in the smith case which told with the s and l crisis had held that that kind of removal was perfectly acceptable you can still have victims it's the last person holding the bag and smith by the time the ninety day period had expired is that correct that is correct and i would so so there was an argument made on whether or not there were victims i understand your view of the law work it's one of the issues before  whether or not the downstream banks were victims but if that was not result in terms of a decision but does that leave that question open and not clear has this that the ninety day time requirement was a time related directive it was not jurisdictional it wasn't even a claims processing rule and the court held that the this record in that case had obviously had analysis of what the statute does require the court in examining the context and the legislative history included that that ninety days was designed for the victims that they congress was concerned that defendants not be able to dissipate assets and that was the motivation behind the ninety days congress apparently actually save it that the only due process rights they were concerned about for defen with respect to this provision was the right not to be sentenced based on misinformation congress was not interested in for now any and all and made that pretty clear and really the statute makes it clear to because the very next sentence in thirty six sixty four of you and explains that victims can reopen the restitution issue if they discover new damages so the statute means something but what it means is that congress one of the courts to hurry on behalf of the victims it did not want to give defendants a free ride simply because the court made a mistake or even the government you know mistake and the court did that here i mean it was five hundred twenty one days that's a lot longer than ninety days that's certainly not what congress and visions but for victims congress pleasant worried about defendants here and defendants are trying to use that in order to escape their duty to pay restitution yeah i don't mean the words you know these are empty words by congress there's i mean the thing then impose any kind of requirement all on the corridor on the government yes your honor i think after dolan is clear it imposes a time related directive  was long for and what did we what did we what we proven established by means of written in a raga tori's prior to the sentencing hearing that one alleged victim says admitted they suffered no losses in it in other words and the ends and saw that the that the rest of the restitution are here is asking the court to assume well if they did it in this one instance then they did it in these other instances and that there should be losses here it it in other words the government's position is really a perversion of the whole of the whole the whole the whole the whole process of imposing civil liability against defendants how can the sentence be liable because they pleaded guilty to one count to one for all these other loans that where the government is simply asking the court to apply but for causation standard the statute does not support and that is that is that is that is why it's not as simple as a thousand days are ten years when a lot then when the