specific last amount as so forth in our brief first there i believe is an issue regarding a disagreement between myself and the usa on the case regarding  vs clear error standard i do believe that whether a district court followed proper sentencing for studer is a legal question to be reviewed to know if think in this matter if you review the sentencing transcript it didn't ever come to the merits of the factual underpinnings of the sentencing of the last amount in a procedural challenge to the sentence the court analyzes whether the sentencing judge properly calculates the guideline range recognize a guideline range wasn't mandatory considers the factors under section thirty five fifty three a sec selected a sentence based on facts that weren't clearly erroneous and explains the sentence adequately the government argues in this matter that the standard is a clear error for findings of fact but in this case there's no evidence other than the spreadsheet was attached to the p s r there's no testimony there's no cross examination as to the compilation of the spreadsheet last amount in a very general fashion correct yet at the sentencing hearing the judge actually on her own stated perhaps we should have the agent calm and you can cross examine the agent and then before there was really much discussion on that the conversation turned and then the judge just decided to go with the p s after the fact based on the fact that you had not provided really any substance to the objection correct however we did provide if we did state at the client and the attorney both stated to the court that there was evidence that they could provide and that they did want to bring that evidence and where was it i don't have an answer to that your honor i mean i look i've read the transcript and it shows a district judge who is more than willing to consider what you all have to say who is frustrated by the lack of specifics explanations can sense when you've been delayed numerous times victims who are in the court room exercising their rights to participate and be heard in the objection just looks like a delaying tactic i agree that it can look that way however i believe that there i believe that that that the client had that information and that the lawyer had not humiliated had it for months correct he'd had actually this is a very simple embezzlement calculation money and money no i wouldn't necessarily say that i themselves but there were records based on the on the bank accounts however there was never an opportunity to cross examine the agent or to go through the specifics i know when did you ask for during the sentencing transcript point can you open that that's that was the conversation that the judge actually brought it up to a sponsor i don't see the defense  that that is true thank you however b they did agree with the judge when the judge stated perhaps you should examine the agent and if they did agree with the judge at that point however that the included wasim else for individual victims correct correct including some of those who testified here they did not test or but stuck at the hand you all had the opportunity to question them if you wanted to correct i believe so ye so you i understand why you might not want to choose to do that but there would seem to be in the another missed opportunity to raise the issue in the district court that you're raising on appeal i believe that the the attorneys that they could get that information that they didn't have at present at the time in order to cross examine those victims that notwithstanding the fact that there's a certain personal value in not going after victims who have lost money and that was but that's a strategic choice you have to make and now you're trying to make an argument to us to take advantage of the choice that you made not necessarily your honor what we want is to be able to cross examine the agent as to how they came about with those specific as far as the standard of review goes again i believe that this is a to noble calculation because the did not follow proper sentencing procedure in in the fact that the case that the government relies on united states versus the trees in that case there was significant evidence that was presented to the jury at the trial the jury found guilty and found very specific factual findings the court weighed the evidence presented at the trial the jury findings as well as significant additional evidence at the sentencing hearing regarding the government methodology how they selected specific tax returns to determine which how to calculate that loss amount again in this case the only thing that was provided was that spreadsheet that there was no testimony regarding the government methodology there was no testimony and no ability to cross examine that agent and and again if you in your honor did  be read by the transcendence in transcript where it's clear at multiple points that the court while frustrated with mr gold and his counsel for failure to provide those those sentencing calculations on their own behalf was also frustrated with the government for their failure to provide more than just a simple spreadsheet i believe that it is procedural error to fail to apply that proper prescriber sentencing procedure in analyzing the facts given by the government as well as allowing the defendant a chance to present his own evidence and his when was the defendant prevented from presenting his own evidence i don't understand what you just said that this recorder you're feeling too  to hear it and the defense didn't have the defense did not have its own evidence in opposition to the government's charge however they were not allowed to cross examine the agent and we're not allowed to secondarily the district court also a procedural error failed to consider the need to provide restitution to the victims it's ridiculous he's not going to make restitution to the victims the district judge doesn't have to belabor the obvious there was no plan presented not even though there were no no credible suggestions as to how he would pay restitution and the district judge simply which isn't right i don't believe that there was a plan presented but the fact there was that there was a significant argument made that the that he was in poor health and that the victims were generally older and smokes lee retired one of which i actually believe died during the pendency of the case in order to be able to get them to the point where they had the opportunity to get restitution he's not going to have any money to give them rest to sure how is he going to make money in order to deal with him anymore i don't i don't know whether people don't complete crook however he did want to be able to he will never be able to provide restitution because no one will ever give him money again unless he repeats is you know frauds changes his name grows a mustache something calculation it is not true that the court only had the spreadsheet and as counsel suggest the court had the p s r which identified all of the fourteen victims and the specific amount of money that each of them lost to the penny the court had the government's version which also that the same thing my add that no defendant's version was filed to the probation office the court then had the supplemental p r star which had the government's summary chart which calculated all money in money out during that period six victims in the courtroom that day we spoke to the judge and in total with their family and friends who they invested they represented about one point seven million dollars of lost the folks in the courtroom yes there were six victims who talk one fair remember sometimes spoke for the son or the daughter or the parent in one case the woman it was ninety seven years old when she invested she died at one hundred so she was not around to talk so her daughter spoke for her so in that respect those victims talked about how they represent themselves but also other family and friends all of those people identified in the piece are in the government's version and into someone charged and all of them total about one point seven million dollars the defense did not take that opportunity at any point in time to try and dispute the last amount any specific evidence has your one of your honor's noted this was not a complicated case there were only about thirteen or fourteen victims we used the defendant's own bank records these were the defendants clients for the last thirty years so he knew all of them and they all identified him in the courtroom so it was a simple calculation to determine how much money he stole from  them and the defendant could not even do that simple calculation and present anything that the district court has your honor saw in the sentencing memorandum the district was clearly frustrated asking specifically get tell me at least one victim that you would challenge to bring this level down below the one point five million and on four occasions the defendant could not do that one of the honors asked about the continuance for the sentencing hearing in fact five sentencing dates were set so it was continued for times one of which was actually made by the defendant who wrote a motion saying i need more time to object to the p s r and do an investigation can we continue the sentencing date even after all of that if the defendant still showed up at sentencing and could not provide one specific piece of evidence as one of the authors asked about the question of the agent there was no request by the defense to question who may be  ok well thank you very much