argument today on the sentencing issue the reasonable doubt issue i want to stand on the brief is your honour's i believe her where the ineffective assistance of counsel claim has been withdrawn so that mr shannon can pursue it under twenty t not sure we're used thirty two the government says that the district court held that defendant was a supervisor not a leader organizer i'd phrase it a little differently what the district court actually said was mr shannon was a supervisor loss he used both words he didn't really distinguish between them and given that it's the small size of the organization and you have the same guideline provision that applies technically it doesn't really matter whether he's a supervisor or manager or whether he's an organizer leader it comes under the same two point but for purposes of thinking through just what was going on i'd i'd like to make a couple of suggestions on that in a very tiny sensually not a hierarchical organization like the one that you've got involved in this case three guys trying to figure out how to make some money together and kind of feeling their way there isn't really any room for a media level supervisor or the traditionally think of as a manager that doesn't mean that you couldn't conceive of some kind of a managerial role but basically somebody with a leadership role in an organization of this nature almost has to be kind of an organizer or one of the troops so i would suggest that the application note fo situations that everybody agrees apply to a leader or manager a something that mr shannon would have to meet in order for the court's finding to be upheld in effect i've gone but then when we look at the facts here we have shannon who recruited taylor yes he did laptop with the identities loading the money gave it to taylor he was the one who was responsible for dividing up the money at least three thousand dollars he often checked in with taylor to make sure things were moving along where things were and he repeatedly threatened taylor when he didn't meet his expectations he did recruit taper i give you that and that counts towards laptop ian williams apparently worked out together he in williams got the names from somewhere he's a participant the only time that he really keen downtime but he's our i guess what i'm he said we all work this out between us as far as the split of procedure again i think taylor's testimony and i think this is at page one forty nine again the government's witness he said  we all agreed of among the three of us that it was fine to be an equal split yes v for cruet meant is a factor that counts in favor of the decision about the proceeds to determination of what the offense would williams was a computer expert healer was a tax expert they they pooled their resources you had to choose specialists than sharon was a generalist shannon kind of went between them and you know there are there are cases in which i think it's correct to say yes the government pointed out a coordinator he's a manager and i think in many cases it's true particularly in a larger organization in this case no in this in this case you've got three equal numbers here and yet and mr sharon is doing what the others didn't do as far as the point about mr shannon coming down taylor threaten absolutely he thought that one of the gang taking was stealing more than his share and that was one gangster getting angry with another it wasn't a manager x or amply supported his conviction clearly show that he was not a mere participant in this group but that he was a he held a supervisory role in this small group the district court care correctly characterized mr shannon as a laid back boss but despite being laid back the evidence showed that he was still the boss the evidence showed that mr shannon recruited mr taylor that he directed mr taylor and mr williams actions that he told mr taylor what to do including explicitly giving mr taylor the green light to file for agin the tax returns that he decided the distribution of the proceeds that he decided they would be equal and that he threatened taylor's on numerous occasions during this during the scheme and mr shannon even concedes both in his sentencing memorandum and in his brief that he was a coordinator that his role was to coordinate in this scheme which is another word really for manage in this scheme and so in relying on this evidence the district court did not clearly err in applying the leadership inhance meant to mr taylor's conduct or to mr shannon's conduct excuse me so if there are no questions the government would ask that this my original argument or on what he raised i'll be happy to address them thank you very much during no but we want to thank you mr sachs for your willingness to accept the appointment in this case in your assistance