the last was not directly in proximately caused by the defendant's conduct in the indicted scheme the indictment charges an effort to the credit reporting agencies and not the creditors than department stores national bank which was a bank for macy's credit cards and not chase district court erred in making  of defending the indicted skiing the loss occurred when the defendant folded on his credit cards this was prior prior to the scheme that was indicted and it involved a fall on consumer loans being credit cards district court erred finding and had to assume the defendant was never going to pay to conclude that the diploma caused the loss the defendant had not paid agreed there was a loss in the moment of the write off of it it was predicated on the judge's hypot hypothetical that there was no loss on the chips fall now the indictment itself chases loss was not a result of not creditors including chase defendant allocute that he tend to detail the team property from credit reporting agencies not creditors and he also community mailed false documents to the credit reporting obtained the government writes in its priest that the defendant mailed fraudulent documents to the credit reporting agencies and financial institutions to write off debt unless government is referring to department stores national bank this is not in the indictment government never proved financial institutions other than department stores national bank fraud mailings and the governor can never prove his ascendance off financial institutions other than department stores national key another case restitution is not available for conduct outside the statute of limitations the government also states that the intended l inconsistent with the theory that defendant has about the restitution order in that there were there was a predicated this there was a loss of two hundred and seven thousand dollars in intended freeze on your account and then allows you to take out more credit so there is an alternative explanation for what the purpose of the scheme was and i must bring also back to the point that the credit cards  purposes that indicated there was a default on the debt and the way that it was a loss if they did not if the creditors did not believe that the charges were made by somebody else they could have then gone after your client and tried to recover i'm sorry they could have gone after him to recover after they wrote it off is that what you're saying i'm saying well they didn't write it off until after he fraudulently induced them to write it off right well i don't think that was his purpose and it certainly wasn't the charge purpose of the indictment so it was certainly something outside the indictment in the case like that makes that coined that you  you can't have restitution for statute of limitation stuff that it's the statute of limitations and similarly this you know the the dippold itself which caused the loss was well prior to be was afterwards but it's likely as well that he was indigent at the time so there was never going to be a payment on this credit card debt  mean we don't know yet because it was never i mean the creditors never got a chance to either compel him into bankruptcy or to move on other assets they didn't get a chance to do that because they were misled into writing off the entire debt correct well they could have sued him earlier before they received from the credit reporting agency before they received these false documents and they didn't take any action to go against him and  you know it's not it's not a she does sure he could have sent the documents directly to change but he didn't he sent the credit reporting agencies to remove the listing from the credit report and the function of the credit reports is to indicate to other potential creditors whether the particular person has a good credit risk has nothing to do with you know writing that that off conspiracy or pattern or criminal activity any person directly harmed by the defendant's criminal conduct in the course of the scheme is entitled to restitution there is no question that the crime here pre sentence report the defendant would run up credit card debt and seek to wipe out that debt both on the credit card credit bureau reports and with creditors he did this by falsely claiming h identity had been stolen and he hadn't opened it counts there is no question that william scheme directly car and chase in the amount of the restitution imposed chase was included in the  affidavit the language of which is unambiguous both credit cards meaning the credit cards subject to restitution were closed as fraudulent application by chase as a result of an identity theft dispute filed through credit bureau reporting agency experience at sentencing when the district court got right to the heart of the issue which your honor just focused on up until the moment that chase took a loss and wrote off the debt as fraud i is to make sure that there's not too much of anything new a sion between the lost cause and the injury that caused it none of that is present here there is no concern about attenuation the critical point and the that the notion that there was a scheme and that there was a direct causalities to the loss of the chase when it rode up the credit card that some time later  and as far as i'm concerned you know the p s r came to some conclusions which i've already said was either base and relevant conduct or based on the fact that in one instance department stores national bank he did  owed by the company other words the money laundering scheme was finished upon the receipt of the laundered money and then to go to the marino case there  marino court cited the congressional committee notes which stated quote the committee believes that losses in which the amount of the victims loss is not clearly causally linked to the offense should not be subject to mandatory restitution and quote much thank you