were is this the money note what agency would and my understanding and my understand from the government actually is that it has been given to the clerk's office and returned and mr stephen can probably talk a little bit about that but that's fine roy at all and yet that's happened just recently as far as i know it you say that the other decision compels reversal but w here on plain there are review and one aspect of playing error review is whether there has been a miscarriage of justice how can it be a miscarriage of justice if there is a restitution order of eleven thousand dollars against which  difference that it makes personally to mr to mister parker is that when he gets to the b o p that restitution order for the full amount follows him and that can have an effect on his participation in the inmate financial affects him suppose he took the eleven thousand dollars away from the bank well he did it in his basement and after his conviction he go and restitution order he goes to the basement gets it out of the box hands it over and the judgment is marked satisfied are there any continuing consequences or restitution order that satisfied if it's completely satisfied probably not  i'm sure what happens with the b o p and that the issue here and i understand the position that's exactly what's going on here restitution order will be marked satisfied partially satisfied yes your hon but it doesn't affect how much he's ordered to pay in the b o p per month or per quarter whatever the i f r p calculation is and it's twice as much that you haven't a bounce no reason not do you have any reason to believe miss christiansen though that if suppose your understanding is correct and mister steffen will be able to clarify that shed some light on it but suppose your understanding is correct as we sit here we don't have any reason to think that b o p is not going to mark the restitution satisfied doing well i just know from practice that the bill p doesn't get a communication from the clerk's office when restitution is paid from a source other than the so there is no communication between the clerk's office and the bureau of prisons regarding payment of restitution and the b o p d takes only that sounds like a problem independent of anything in this case right why don't you just ask the clerk's office to send the bureau a letter saying this award has been satisfied and we can certainly do that as well your honor however there is a problem of the statutory  thousand dollars out the door puts it in his basement and he tells the court when he pleads guilty i've got it in my basement and all hand back as soon as i get a chance or as soon as my wife goes and visits the basement you're surely not arguing that there can't be a restitution order in that case just because the money is sure to come back well i think if there is properly arrested who can order there which will then be marked satisfied when the money is returned why the restitution order here marked satisfied when the money is returned in that case there is of course no guarantee that it will be returned i think that would be the government's position and that they're not going to take the clients word for hey i'll just give it back on the government would like of course not but that the reason we got into this is that you are contending that this must be plain error because the very fact of the restitution order is an injury to the defendant whether it is satisfied or not and it doesn't seem to me you would be taking that position in my hypothetical and then i'm not sure why you're taking that position here well in your head the declare your honor the defendant has control over it and can return it in mister progress case he does not law enforcement or the government has control of the money and that is where the order should go is the order to return it by law enforcement that that's the issue the restitution should not include more than a district court to modify their order i have not your honor because the judgment is still on appeal and i don't want to modify a judgment that's currently on appeal this christianson i don't i don't mean to be pedantic about this but when i read the when i read the judgment itself it all but reads to me that it has been satisfied in the way that the reason that i say that is because it references as you well know the eleven for fifty seven from the defendant and it says that has been applied toward restitution so it's right except there are there's an additional mountain there well i mean it's that's peanuts that's not why we're here right well right and i think that that the issue is that when it's entered in the b o p is that it's not entered as a lower amount it's entered as what the restitution is ordered and that's the twenty five thousand dollars amount and that's what mister parker is currently paying on and that's it were you also can't the and of course i only represent him on appeal but that would have been the step to take but this court has said in the past the modification of judgments is not appropriate while the judgment is currently on appeal so certainly counsel mister thinking good afternoon it please the court my name is corey stephan i represent the government in this matter i think the court is correct in the questions that we have we've addressed so far is that there was no plane or in this case the defendant robbed a bank he was caught after a dramatic car chase and crash in the money was recovered at sentencing the court ordered the restitution for the full amount that the defendant stole from the bait bank but immediately credit it with the expected return of the recovered money now the money was not the defendant's he had no claim to it he couldn't personally return it to himself because it was in custody so he won foresman and the money was ordered returned to the bank that was something that was contemplated at the time of sentencing  parties all agreed to the amount there was no dispute about that at the time of sentencing so the defendant was not harmed in this case there was no air that affected his substantial rights now in terms of the outstanding restitution there is still outstanding restitution for the fed ex truck the defendant did contest that by filings and at the sentencing hearing in the district court the defendant objected to the  eleven for fifty seven today the eleven for fifty seven me i speak outside the record i mean i yeah i know it's not in the record but i had it just seems to me that this is just a matter of we just have to get this cleared up so it it indicates that it's been satisfied if it seems clear on its face that it's been satisfied but if you know where the money's at today i'd like to hear what you have to say about that thank you yes  while we were working on this appeal we followed up with the law enforcement agencies confirmed that the money was returned through the clerk of courts office and we have received and i'm willing to supplement the record if the thousand three hundred and twelve dollars ninety nine cents was applied to the restitution going towards the summer credit union and the additional one hundred and forty four dollars and one cent that was found on the defendants person one hundred dollars of that was taken applied towards the special assessment the other forty four dollars and one dollar cent were applied to additional victim restitution which would be the st payment towards the fed ex truck so everything went as  planned the defendant or the restitution and it was paid or returned credited to him in fact was credited the time of the sentencing hearing now there might be several different ways for courts to do this but here the the court made a complete record so i think the government's position is that the court is mandated under the m d r a to order a full restitution and in terms of the cases here  the defendant states anderson but the government's position is set forth in our brief as if that's factually distinct just as taylor cans to fall on in favor of the government here the defendant  points out that it there are factual distinctions all of these cases that we're looking at here have factual distinctions and in fact in andersen the remained was for a proper determination because it wasn't  concluded whether or not the money was returned a ball or not so so that was remanded for an additional determination so for all of those reasons the government's position is that there was no player in this case that the district court acted properly in protecting the rights of the victim protecting the rights of the defendant and making an accurate record is the one you and counsel for the defendant went to the district judge could you clear this up why you why are you up here on appeal i don't quite understand and it's beyond me why you're under the government's response in the city brief that was filed the appeal that the defendant file i understand advocate you have what we're talking about is the money's already been to both of you explain them it's  mailing a copy of it to the warden or to the b o p s general counsel i don't see any reason why not your honor so unless or any further questions government's position is that the district court acted properly one way to rule the rule counsel is that are different judge can't modify a judgement while the case is on appeal there's no reason why a district court can't send a letter or a spreadsheet to the bureau of prisons so long as the judgment is unmodified