reserve three minutes of it please the court where you're basically talk about three issues why is the plain language of the judgment and commitment that was written by judge and right concerning restitution obligation of my client this case we contend that that the plain language of that judgment and commitment and he read any other way but to the language that i made us that's clear he also wrote a memorandum decision in which he sets out thirty six sixty three age and and because the government didn't comply with thirty six sixty four and they knew they didn't comply with thirty six sixty four and then they kept collecting the restitution even then your next argument is no matter what the order says it's a legal true yes and which should we  independent evaluation obviously that the government knew that all when it was was unlawful they had every reason to know what they were in restitution should have any effect should have any effect on either they in monies that she already paid on their continued ability to collect money that's basically the third issue schedule which the statue required there was a statutory limit at that time that there was a that the payment schedule could not go on for more than five years if you look at the outset this the rest of the paragraph the verb very first paragraph very first  of that paragraph says full restitution is mandatory under the scheme's act and then the judge also ordered alternatively full restitution under the v w p eight and then if you look at the eight preceding pages of the judgment that this restitution order is part of it starts out by saying that the defendants will make payment to the following page and then goes on for a page isn't listed it was each victim the amount of restitution that they're supposed to pay so i think it's very clear the district court was ordering full restitution to all the victims and i don't see how the restitution order can be read any other way right in the context of the full and then after that it's up to the government and the victim to enforce the restitution order and so the way it works is once the payment schedule ends whatever remaining balance of the restitution is due it is basically reduced to a civil judgment and tried to get the restitution from the co defendants as well what happened is when it went up on the second appeal and this court said well there is and you didn't the district court didn't comply with the terms of the statute in ordering an independent accounting i went back down to the district court at that point the government supplied the information it had and that it is used in calculating the rest of the victims and the amount of the losses provided that to the probation department provided to the defense you know but at that point what the statute required was that the probation office then do an independent accounting that the probation office contact all the victims and it was that that point that the district court said look this is just too much work we've been going on for a long time i don't think that we're these people are going to get any relief the victims are going to get any relief it's just not worth the effort and under the statute the court was allowed to make those findings and terminate the restitution orders with respect to whether the the  seems like he doesn't really want that he's that's why he's raising this separate issue which is completely independent of what happened with respect to the co defendants orders concerning the plain language of the statute and the reason i think he's doing that is because under that argument he gets of he's trying to say that that's it they're done with restitution there's no more restitution period with respect to the question of whether the restitution order is unlawful i the defendant never appealed her restitution or she had the opportunity to do that and at this point in the proceedings seven years later arrested two she orders part of a criminal judgment it just can't be reopened this isn't a direct appeal of the restitution or seven years have gone by the defendant never challenged her restitution order and the only only reason the prior restitution order was invalid the co defendants orders were found unlawful is because there was a failure to comply s payments to the victims so there's no reason to believe that there's anything wrong with the with the restitution order as it now  stands the final wish i'd like to address briefly is that our position is that there is no there isn't there the district court simply had no right jurisdiction to grant the release that the transit was seeking here i mean what we're doing at this point is the government was trying to enforce the balance of the restitution order in the same manner as it would in force any other civil judgment by filing a writ of garnishment and it was doing this under the federal debt collection procedures act and under that act there's a fairly limited of the defendant at that point is not allowed on to the act to come back in and start contesting the validity of the underlying debt they can contest the way in which the rate of garnishment is issued and things along those lines and whether the property would be exempt but you can't recently distributed through the victims it's collected by the district court in the district court keeps it in a restitution fund so it has now been it has now been distributed to the victim yesterday in february of two thousand  earlier this year there was a distribution of pro rata distribution to the victims but what they do is there's a hundred thirty one victims here and so you know administratively sending out checks and you know gets all gets kind of expensive so they they try to hold the money until they get a fairly significant amount that they can send checks she was ordered to make restitution two hundred one victim one hundred thirty one yes trying to and so that eleven thousand dollars was somehow divided among those those that number and they were right it was divided based on the amounts of the day it's money and i think i read someplace in here that you were still holding the money i think that may have been that that may have been true at the time ok but it has been distributed all right thank you be the government always had the opportunity and they continued to have the opportunity to comply with the statute that's the court basically said and bag number two that it needs to be an independent evaluation we don't have a new problem with the government seeking an independent evaluation this is something they should have done over seven years ago and they knew they should have done it when they say when the co defendants came to this court