restitution so the funeral expenses that are at issue in this case were st raised as an issue by the probation office in the present report the present report the probation office recommended that mr reserve my client pay the funeral expenses of the robber of the guy that was attempting to rob the  as marijuana transaction the defense filed an objection to that recommendation we stated that st of all the robber was not a victim he was participating criminal conduct and the statute specifically excludes any restitution to anybody that's involving cruel conduct so the parties that was an issue for sentencing was there no other basis for the objection all that during during that initial objection at the presence level no we just said is not a victim we object to paying restitution when when it came to the sense of hearing the and it references an earlier objection that i made that the robber was a victim in paragraph twenty four so we actually started in two different places within the and based on that the district court found that the defendant agreed to pay the funeral expenses are like we did not agree to that in fact from the get go we deliver drugs that that falls into that relevant conduct thing and that that should not that's brought no now the question is is why is the is the core wrong with that what's what's what's the what's the error in that which i think reasonable people could argue that there is in this case in fact i think it's reasonable to argue either either way is this effect on i think nine out of one hundred lay people would say is absolutely not a victim but the bottom line is that it's ambiguous and any ambiguity shows that there was never a meeting of the minds and in any contract there has to be a meeting of the minds and in addition the case law is clear that any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the defense and so this was never a time some players are the parties in the plea agreement and from the beginning when it was raised at the very st time by the probation office the defense objected by the government and it's in this recent case clean up from the supreme court in the spring of two thousand and twenty dealing with the it's called the party presentation principle th e courts are obliged to rule on the issues that have been argued by the parties and not to go out and try to find other  before the only point in qana contact was defendant being or he defendant being or was the one with the relationship with defendant sir but with the prior drug relationship but plot had never well your honor the robbery the robbery is a sideshow or a big part in the coming conspiracy and i am looking at things and so no way would you get a multiple and again i respectfully from the prosecution side of the bench disagree i think that we probably cannot prove that they're all not probably can they the objective of how to fill the goals of the conspiracy to build our ultimate objective the means that they have agreed upon are dramatically different between these two groups there is no meeting of the it larger classification of individuals than this statue provides or if this mr heath suggested we had intended to rely on the statutory definition of the film there would be no need to insert the word relevant conduct following that and we could have simply referred to the actu in the terms of the plea agreement as to how we were to find victims but the parties did not do that we included relevant kind of the victims with a clearance and to broaden the classification of that and that's the fence what have you read that as just extra meaningless language but that of course not how we co quickly defense the defense of argue that the government never banned the series from the district court i disagree the government sentencing memo at docket entry one of seven the difficulty incorporates the pre sentence invest that the government has the right to defend any ruling of the court on appeal or in any post conviction proceeding and so the government has not waived its argument not set them aside we have in fact we're free to defend and advance them here before the square and i can see that i believe my time nothing was said i think that's very important and shows that neither party contemplated this plea agreement to include restitution and funeral expense