have committed these crimes wire fraud when he was a teenager he was at home with his parents and he was sentenced to thirty six months of which he's already done about sixty some days this appeal raises substantial issues of questions ordered we believe that after argument this case will be sent back to the district court for discussion of the of the loss issue in this case the loss by the way is four hundred ninety five thousand dollars and change the second substantial question of we believe is under crawford versus washington that's the confrontation issue in this case the government at the end of trial had an f b i agent take the witness stand and put into evidence connecticut and so the cross examination of the other piece offered now means well that's a good question under crawford the court specifically said and just reading from crawford we weep for another day i'm sorry specifically says we we for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of testimonial and in footnote ten the supreme court also said we realize this is going to leave some uncertainty now i'm not saying we have to resolve that now i'm just saying a raise is a substantial question for this court when we do the appeal the third argument we have substantial legal argument has to do with u s forces countrywide again a fairly recent decision of this court and that had to do with the government's burden of proving the fraudulent intent at the time of the inducement of a contract not necessarily not necessarily brand new law but we believe that many of these contracts the government had did not prove any fraudulent intent at the time of the inducement because even the testimony of the so called victim said yes we are borrowing money at high interest rates because we wanted to make a lot of money and that's that's the third issue and finally the fourth substantial legal issue we believe had to do oh absolutely that the district court first of all found he wasn't a risk of flight no one claimed he was a risk of flight but the district court specifically said the defendant has no insight about the fraudulent nature of his activity and therefore poses a significant risk of in the future to engage in more fraud and money laundering well it seems to me that that's it there's there are conditions that can be fashioned around that concern about protecting the public you have at home you have been home confinement he lives at home you have him there with no access to internet you thank your honor may please the court just briefly picking up where your other mentioned the thirty thirty one forty three b one requires a defendant shelby detain unless you can show by a clear and convincing evidence that among other requirements that they're not a danger to the community and that their appeal would raise a substantial question of law in fact as to the danger to the community issue your honour's judge meyer found out a number of occasions that the defendant did not satisfy his burden by clear and convincing evidence that he was not a danger to the community in fact he wrote on one occasion believing document one hundred two in the record i simply have no confidence and can have no confidence that mr big is not and will not continue to engage in fraud and he goes on to say at least he has not shown in light of his conduct any clear and convincing evidence that he has not and will not return to his criminally fraudulent ways so as your honor mentions i thought i read in your submission go on as you mentioned your honor that he that the judge did consider his conduct while on release and while he didn't make a finding of a criminal conviction if you will he found that he had violated his conviction violated his conditions sufficiently that he was a danger to the community  that was done on october fourth and the defendant was us his report to the defendant was detained that day because the judge had found him to have violated his condition for multiple reasons that when he because he didn't show up for no it's because he trout and none other reasons he traveled to new york where he was not permitted to he wouldn't gamble that the empire city casino when he knew that he had a large restitution order of approximately five hundred thousand dollars would be d and he so engaged in conduct of taking in more money based on false pretenses telling a family that he would put their money towards a concert took in ten thousand dollars using his father's company's merchant account he took in ten thousand dollars saying it would go to a specific concert when in fact the artist that was represented to be rich appearing at that concert had said no they wouldn't appear at that particular concert then mr living at this time was he living at home he was he was i was the same place where he would go back if we decided to be released on bail yes and judge miers specifically mentioned in the hearing which is again transcribed in the record doc and one eighty two that he found that the father i believe was to some extent aiding and abetting that's not the exact word he used enabling yes your honor in the fact that the father was not only he was he living at home but the father was a third party custodian so what counsel has now proposed is that he would be perhaps have the mother is the third party custodian and judge meyer certainly did not think that that would be appropriate and again  in this day and age with texting and cell phones it's not denied access to computers and telephones during the period when he was living at home i believe not at the point prior to his being detained your honor  but additionally if i may just address the second significant issue is that there are there is no substantial question here likely to result in reverse or a new trial mr einhorn mentions for the first time alchemy and there was not a supplemental letter submitted so admittedly i'm not as well versed as i would otherwise be on that case but i can tell you that the in this case there was a base offense of seven loss of four hundred sixty four hundred ninety six thousand dollars a leadership role all it has been for money laundering and enhancement for obstruction of justice and judge meyer gave the defendant a below guideline sentence so considering that it was a low guideline sentence of thirty six months when the guideline range was much higher i don't think that would raise a substantial question yes well you need to find a lot of people who are on i think over twenty seven victims lost approximately half a million dollars he started the fraud by taking his small amounts of money from some of his classmates in his senior year of high school he presented himself as an entrepreneur who didn't need to go to college because he was making money over the internet making the with buying and selling these electronics and a number of the parents of the children thought he was making money he would take in for example five thousand dollars and give back seventy five hundred and then they saw their their child had made about a fifty percent return some of them took large amounts of money including ms burke who was count six of fifty thousand dollars expecting to get a commensurate return they took some money out of their retirement because it had worked on a smaller level and by presenting himself as a young internet entrepreneur i think he used his young age as part of a reason to so he was he used his young age as part of that this scheme as part of his pitch that he was this internet entrepreneur and he continued it until i believe until two thousand and fifteen when i think he was at that point my client to marry your honor asked i think about committing fraud well on release the district court specifically didn't base his detention on that the courts had a base in the conclusion and two principle grounds one i'm not going to try to resolve them out always choose that's the issues about anything it happened  release i'm going to release not two things number one definitely the trip to new york and number two he's giving a false statement of probation about that thank you so we understand this just because now incarcerated we will issue our decision as soon as possible will issue an order if possible today