permanent residence a live united states for twenty five years criminal conviction the question is whether or not that conviction amounts to an aggravated felony the results and deportation and in turn that has to do with the amount of money that was involved in the current correct he was found guilty of count among other things correct correct count eight involved two items one of which was one hundred thirteen thousand dollars  another of which was one hundred thirty four thousand dollars and he was found guilty of count eight how is it possible for that conviction even without any of the others court actually changed while this wrote the decision in garcia pas only two years ago the evidence presented at trial need not match the factual allegations in the charging document in order for a jury to convict and in this case the question of the amount of the law is not an element of the statute they are looking under and therefore whatever evidence that may or may not have been presented at trial regarding the dollar amount involved the jury need not have  believe is not precedent for two reasons and doesn't apply for two reasons alvarez there's not precedence because number one they didn't consider this a variance issue when they reached their decision and if the issue isn't litigated and will those instructions would help in the sense that those are the crucial documents that would indicate what facts the jury was required to find to be true in order to convict so that they would be helpful to  parker left open the possibility of a special jury verdict form that might have factual questions that have to be answered that would also be another kind of document that w realistically one of parker actually addressed that scenario and they said that whatever will is adopted whether requiring a jury instructions or not one part of the other would be in a more difficult situation they determine  that it's better that somebody not be in that case convicted are here deported over something they weren't necessarily convicted of then someone be deported for the company let off for something they actually work effected and so that principle means that the burden should be on the government to find the evidence if they're charging that it's an aggravated felony and some cases will have that evidence in some cases wants but it's up to the government to obtain the evidence and present it in the immigration context so that your position that the modified categor first level of ninety give nineteen could apply only if the total amount of loss is between two hundred and four hundred thousand dollars because the base of transferable is seven and the last of two hundred to four hundred twelve modified categorical approach applies to what that means is that the jury could have convicted a defendant of an element of an aggravated felony that is not necessarily an element of the statutory  that there's amount of money involved in the crime that he was convicted of you don't have to show any man of money involved so you have to show it seems to me some outside evidence which we allow the modified category approach inquiry is whether whether the amount that the jury found was over ten thousand dollars what we also have in addition to the superseding information is the judgment of conviction as this court recognized and parker it is possible for a judgment particular charge to the viewer you have to find over ten thousand dollars or one thousand dollars we know they found over ten thousand or ten fifteen thousand dollars they didn't have to make that finding some of those lines and pieces it seems to me aren't going to be very much hope to that's the place you have to go for parker's pretty strong on this is that the charging documents and the verdict form if it tells a certain amount we don't have any of that here so then we come to the question posed by judge graver and that is we had a judge sitting there watching the whole thing the judge knows what's going on with the judge sentences to this large amount of money there is no judicial finding sufficient but your colleagues in opposition say that all of the laws as the jury has to make that will determine notions that is the jury's one who decide who is guilty the jury has decided also the amount and so that's the question we have before us now which we haven't directly faced before and why is that why would you conclude that it's a good idea or appropriate and that we can look to the sentence imposed by the judge who does not know what the jury found as regards the amount involved why convincing evidence that that mr lee was convicted of an aggravated felony in order to do that you have to look at all of the documents in the record together and you have the superseding information  loss you have a judgment and i'd actually just briefly respectfully disagree with what what i believe parker actually says is that a jury verdict that only says we find the defendant guilty of eighteen u s c section thirty three seventy one is not sufficient it doesn't stand for the proposition that the jury verdict has to actually say we find the defendant guilty of over ten thousand dollars if it simply specifically references the information which contains imagine might make a difference how would you distinguish i good argument would be that the jury did in fact based on the fact that based on the information and the judgment which typically references all eight counts that the jury did convict mr lee of the amount of well under alvarez yeah and in many cases this court i believe what this court has said is that it's not going to look to the underlying facts that were presented at trial all it's going to look to is the information then and there  it's clear that when a judgment specifically references the information that the judgment must be red and white of that information in addition in this case again there's the it's not so clear when the judge calculated the sentence might have been other last charge count it might have been other related activity that the government didn't bother to charge the sentencing judge can consider that when calculating the quote unquote loss for sentencing purposes and chang they said it doesn't matter what the law for the purpose is it's just consider plenty of other allegations that were not proven attributable to the actual count wasn't ten thousand in that case there was plenty of evidence that the the fine or the restitution imposed because of the total loss was more than ten thousand and this court said that doesn't matter in this case as well even if we can deduce that the judge found more than ten thousand lost based on his proposed sentence it doesn't mean that that's the last the judge found on the county was convicted up because the government could introduce other unindicted acts as a part of that last calculation like changing in maine that more than ten thousand lost might have been as a result of other acts not described at the county was actually convicted of let me ask you questions to pose the defendant in a way of jury indicated that the judge believed that the violation was well above the necessary amount would that be sufficient only if there's evidence in the record that when the judge me that amount determination it was was last associated with the actual county was convicted and how would you prove that well you have to look at the at the actual record you all he's got is what the man testified to or what the evidence testified to in the trial so we can assume because the judge follows the law he's only going to look at that and then we can assume that if he got it anyplace else it would be on the record because  judge could never do it otherwise and so we can find out very easily so my question to you is if a judge could do this there is a judge could just assume we've gone that far and you don't fully agree with this i'm sure let's assume that a judge hearing the case alone could then impose a sentence which would tell a sufficient then what is wrong with the judge and jury doing it the judges sitting there the judges assessing the facts the judge makes a determination who has to amount why isn't that sufficient for purposes of this particular type of law well i think that the language in the case law that says proven to a jury or determined as true by jury course has to be understood to be because the jury were there at that time but i'm saying i'm suggesting to you that we haven't answered this question yet so just assume that even though we've mentioned juries because juries was the doesn't necessarily come from the evidence presented at trial that comes from the investigation right but my my my hypothetical is that the p s r affirming out of we so there isn't anything else there's nothing else for you to