there's four reasons why that restitution order should be vacated st of all the appeal waiver in the plead remount is not a to the issue in this case because the restitution order exceeded the statutory maximum second of all the envy or a has a different methodology for calculating restitution depending upon whether it's a property crime or a involves a bodily injury crime rd mr moon in his plea agreement he did not agree to broaden the scope of the conduct which has subject him to restitution and the th even if this court were to deem that mr moon broaden the scope in the  moon's conda did not give rise to l r n j b s deaths in some this case is about trying to put a square peg in a round hole to mar st point the n p r a statute clearly states when you look at it with a plain reading that it should only when you have a property crime you cannot get damages army you can't get restitution for funeral cremation expenses that's clear just by looking at the statue you don't it's face in that to be sure the plead gree meant that there is some language about how he would have agreed to be responsible restitution for quote unquote relevant conduct however there's no definition of relevant conduct in the plea agreement and accordingly the parties can only speculate is so as to what that meant what the phrase relevant conduct meant it certainly did not mean that he agreed to be liable for conspiracy you know for libel for restitution for what others may have done and that he was unaware of what was going on that is true of me he's to be sure he did operate the place knowing that there was a lot of drug activity going on but again the relevant conduct doesn't you know as it's what's not even defined in the plea agreement but it certainly doesn't reach that sort of conspiracy liability and freeroll expenses and then on top of it all in the p s r findings that the district court did make it appears that the district court was  holding moon responsible for restitution for because he participated in disposing of these bodies i mean that's a horrible activity that mr moon gauge but there's the causation is missing just because he participated in the disposal of these bodies doesn't mean that he proximately cause rd deaths in some mr moon for quests the score to vacate the rest to shouldn't order an remand this case back to the district court so that the judgment can be amended to have the restitution omitted unless the court has a new further questions that that's all that i requires the payment of funeral expenses where the offense results in death and one's other arguments against the district court's restitution order are barred by the appellate waiver turning st to the standard of review which is disputed here because mine did not object to the restitution order in the district court on any grounds let alone the one that he now urges for the st time on appeal plain air or view applies as seen in miller mature and winchell this court has repeatedly apply plane error review where the defendant arguments against the restitution order the st morning that the m p r a does not authorize funeral expenses and this can start the waiver now specifically right and so the waiver covers one argument but not the other one argument  arguing that the sentence exceeds the statutory max because it's arguing that the act does not allow it does not authorize funeral expenses so that it that he is allowed to make that he did not weigh that argument it falls within the exception however of the other argument that he is making that the district court fact findings in a finding that his conduct as opposed to the conduct of others caused the victims losses here that is waived by the appellate way very does not fall within the statutory maximum exception  so turning to the only issue that was not waived by his appeal waiver this interpretation of the mandatory victim restitution act months contention that that act does not authorize funeral expenses fails under the plain language of the statute or the statu provides in the case of an offense resulting in bodily injury that results in the death of a victim the order of restitution shall require that the defendant pay an amount equal to the cost of necessary funeral and related expenses because this is a case of an offense that resulted in the death of the victim under the plain terms of the act not only are puro offenses authorized they are required now months argument otherwise confuses two distinct concepts st an offen against property which is referenced by subsection c of the act an offense resulting in damage to or the loss or destruction of property which is referenced by subsection b but the acts language structure and purpose make clear that those two concepts are distinct an offense against property as referenced by subsection c in a list of numerated offenses covered by the act also included in the list are a crime of violence an offense relating to the tampering of consumer products an offense relating to the theft of medical products on the other hand offense really resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property is referenced in subsection b and it describes a category of loss that may result from any of the covered  whether it's a crime of violence an offense against property or defense resulting or relating to tampering with consumer products or the dept of medical products nd the act recognizes that a victim oh no offense against property can s physical injury and the statute specifically states that it applies when every victim of any of the covered offenses including an offense against property suffers a physical injury rd by the plain terms of subsection b it provides that the forms of restitution a district court must order depend not on the type of offense the defendant committed but on the type of resulting loss whether that's property loss bodily injury or death or expenses incurred in it while participating in the investigation or prosecution of the offense finally the purpose of the act is to compensate victims for their loss and to make them whole but this purpose can hardly be accomplished if as mine argues the act completely ignores the loss the victim actually suffered and instead focuses only on the type of offense the defendant committed in order to compensate victims for a lost restitution must necessarily be consider and be based on the victim's lo now in his reply mon cites a string of cases but none of them stand for the proposition that the m p r a precludes funeral expenses where the offense results in death rather all of this i think cases involve offenses resulting in property loss not the loss of life qualifying offense the defendant committed is distinct from the loss that results and that restitution is paid to the resulting loss not the type of qualifying events in wilfong and maynard the defendant committed a crime of violence that resulted in property loss not physical injury so the victims accordingly in those cases were compensated for their property loss in maine are the nd circuit described sex subsection b of the act as outlining four categories of harm not categories of offenses as mine argues it then went through each of the victim's expenses to see if they qualified under any category of harm showing that the qualifying offense is not limited to a particular category of harm and that if the offense had resulted in death t th the victim would have been awarded funeral expenses as directed by subsection b three of the m b r a so based on the plain language structure and purpose of the m p r a as well as the case law which if anything supports the government's position not m court although he did reserve the right to appeal sense exceeding the statutory maximum and as discussed although that reservation preserves his st argument against what the end the ira authorizes it does not preserve his nd argument that the district or erred in finding that his conduct as opposed to the conduct of others caused the victim's losses in frazier this court held that a similar argument was barred by an analogous waiver provision there the defendant argued that it was others not him who was responsible for the rest because the government had not shown that he had jointly undertaken the criminal activity this court held that such an argument did not fall within the exception for a challenge to a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum as he did not contend that the amounts of boarded exceeded the victim's losses people caused those losses but more importantly this is not an argument that the district court exceeded its authority in imposing restitution where there is no dispute that this issue court had the authority to impose restitution if it found as it did here that the month offense conduct caused the victims death months dispute is with how the district court exercised its discretion is this view is with the courts fact findings and just as the statutory maximum exception does not cover a defendant's challenge to the district court's fact findings underline a prison sentence so to that exception does not cover i defend his challenge to the courts that findings underlying restitution or because his contention at the district or erred in finding that he carved the victim's  the by the defendant's event of conviction but here money agreed in his plea agreement that the district court could order restitution arising from all relevant conduct not limited to that arising from the offense of conviction alone therefore the district court had the authority to order restitution for losses directly and proximately caused either by months of offensive conviction that is his maintaining the drug involved premises at the hunger hotel or by arising from relevant conduct  st month fails to show that the district court erred let alone plainly erred in finding that the conduct underlying his offensive conviction was a but for and proximate cause of the victim's death but for months maintaining the hondo hotel it was it as what it was an unsafe haven where drug dealers could openly connect their business without fear of law enforcement j b would not have been there on june th two thousand and eighteen he would not have consumed the heroin he obtained from the dealers there and he would not have overdosed and died as on the refused to heroin purchased and consumed at the hotel or whether she was killed by a violent drug dealer operating in an environment where you can do whatever you want without fear law enforcement and there's a cleanup crew to remove the bodies now the district court also possibly found that incidents of violence occurring in the hotel before her death in may two thousand and eighteen a woman came out of the hotel bloody from beating sometime before august two thousand and eighteen he'll beat and strangled his girlfriend in october two thousand and eighteen a man was shot in the head and killed in november two thousand eight hundred and two individuals were shot while working a trap for him also in november two thousand eight hundred a dealer fired several rounds down the hall of the hotel on december th two thousand eight dealers tortured a woman with a blow torch and struck her more than fifty times with a wooden chair leg until her bones were broken and december th the dealer tortured a nd individual with a blow torch and fired around close to his head in this environment maintained by mine everyone was armed including mine himself great efforts were taken to avoid police presence and bodies were moved from there were tell where the cleanup crew are no money argues that the actions of others the dealers who sold heroin to j b n l r and the drug dealer hill who sold l o l are not him were the ones that caused their deaths but he ignores that there can be many but for causes for a death and just because the dealers victory as the leadoff batters home run sochi was mine who created the circumstances that produced babies and ehlers that just as much about for cause of their deaths as the dealers who sold them heroin or the dealer who salted l here or do the dealers actions undermine proximate cause ation and they were entirely forseeable the unforeseeable the dealers distribution of heroin was an intended consequence of months criminal conduct as his business this was inextricably intertwined with theirs and the evidence  advance notice when he knew that city inspectors or law enforcement were coming he did lead a hotel surveillance footage that portrayed illegal conduct he paid certain people to remove bodies from the hotel and sure he made the hunger what it was a place where you can do whatever you want and you don't have to worry about getting in trouble even the violence of hill in particular was reasonably forseeable to mine and hill was a drug dealer who had been at the hunger hotel the longest of all the dealers he knew the hotel best and it is fair to infer again this is the government's trying to put a square peg in a round hole mr francis and by the way mr mood does not dispute that he committed awful crimes here that's why he greed to plead guilty to maintaining your drug and ball promise from asus if he's not even challenging his twenty year sentence he knows that his activity was despicable what he's challenging is that just because his behavior is despicable and horrible doesn't mean that the government can just ignore the plain language of of the him v r a in the plain language of the plea agreement there's just him by the way he's challenging whether he can even qualify to be to pay restitution the supporter because people and the evidence that's set forth in this p s r i mean it and it says that black apparently possibly sexually assaulted l or  black and possibly killed l or but there's no evidence at all that mr moon jointly undertook any of that activity by the way as far as the appeal waiver goes certainly if mr moon was challenging how the funeral expenses were calculated that would be barred on the under the appeal waiver also if mr moon was challenging how the cremation expenses for calculated likewise that would be barred under the appeal waiver but that's not what moon is doing in this case he simply bring up a legal question which he's allowed to do under the statutory maximum exception to the appeal waiver unless the p m o has any further questions that's all that i have on behalf of mr mann thank you very much