time and that snapshot in time is not accurate and the fact of the matter is that once you take all the accounts into consideration and consider all the money that mr hamel it made for it anymore this was basically selling eric in a sense and the fact of the matter is by selling it at a keeper rate first to some people directly these still making money off it they're not making as much money as they ought to make on it but they are still making money on it so they are not in the end losing they're just not getting as much money as they should have gotten but in a scheme of things if he had not entered into these agreements they would not have made many any money at all and i would note also it appears to me that he has not given credit for the fact that he was also paying for the residential accounts the residential counts that were snuck into the you know basically what the those residential accounts also separately so and i don't think that the that the the way they determine the loss that they considered that i think you know almost jumping to the end of my argument i think the issue here is that there was this sense that it was going to be impossible to figure out what an accurate assessment of loss would be and that was what so as a result of that there were also its  used when there's no way to determine the loss and they felt that they had a way to determine loss so gain i don't believe was considered anything i've read in the record and if i understand that and i have to s this was announced strikes me as remarkably conservative in this case but we have some elements of the value of equipment and accounts awaiting that were written understanding things like that i think but i think judge he felt that he didn't cause direct t v any harm and he believed he didn't cause direct t v harm because he believed that and this was a crime and i think he didn't need all that so i think he did deserve acceptance possibility around it i don't think there was anything wrong with that and the government hasn't keeled as to whether he should have gotten out when the government hasn't asked for a still the district court did not really give him consideration for all the money that he made for direct t v and i think maybe you know part of the problem is that right from the  by the f b i directly they didn't say it was impossible to figure out the last directv said that it would be difficult or time consuming to determine the loss which i'm not sure is enough to  it would directed it i can't answer that question your honor where they would have believed that they would have agreed to do it at the procurement rate i guess i would have to assume no because they have  i just think that he should have been considered under thirty five fifty three anyway and not as part of the last because i believe that i should be looking this way judge and i believe that the learning style and i'm just i'm just that i keep looking up the air to the right and forgetting you're right in front of me there was no actual net was but i do think there was fraud here and therefore under thirty five fifty three you would be able you would say that the last understate the seriousness of the offense and i think those aspects could be considered as part of thirty five sixty three eg that's why i think they should have been considered  conclusion your honor and i think there was just a lot of confusion about how to figure out the us itself coming into the case as the appellate lawyer i have to say it took me a long time to figure out you know exactly how it was calculat circumstances i think the fact of the matter was they couldn't or didn't want to take the time to determine what the actual loss was and ended up coming up with just a bunch of different figures when in fact they still are taking the time to determine what the loss was and i think had they done that again we would have seen that the amount of games that they made for what mr harmala did through the receiving without going to the building and physically inspecting the receivers themselves and that's because when the defendant registered his residential single family receiver that's where directv thought those receivers  problems actually inspecting equipment in this case they went out and did a number of odd it's where they went to buildings and asked for permission to look at the equipment to see if they could you know take pictures of it and figure out what equipment was there and in the record it government's exhibit b druggy wrote a report about all the times they rented various buildings and tried to get access and there were numerous occasions when directv went to a building and the building manager would not allow them to access the plant told them it's the defendant would even if they had been able to get access they were not no longer found the equipment there and the problem in calculating the programming last respects the city in this case is simply that in order to do that directive you would have to physically inspect all one hundred some buildings multi unit buildings that the defense service and they just weren't able to do so and that is why the district court and the government sort of came up with this or conservative work right that's correct do they run into some of the similar problems of buildings billing managers to all of the can't inspect on site i believe that the auditing did by the time single auditing got involved the defendant was well aware of the  believe was delayed with the defendant saying there's a problem with your account please call directv so we can resolve it simply to try to figure out where are some of these problems were occurring so i do believe not having ransom laundering was able to get into some of the buildings but certainly they were not able to get into all the buildings you need estimate or feel for the scope of the direct the investigation versus the scope of what signal what it your are off the top of my head i cannot i know brooklyn tried to access buildings neither of them tried to go to all a hundred buildings they went to a smaller sample site sometimes they were successful sometimes they were not after the beam out this beach that says to the viewer went boxes were and to give those customers an a chance to convert to a correct direct t v account the really the point of what the beating out of the signal was that directv wanted those customers to call so they could say hey idea they had purchased praja and direct t v and during that time period directv was still providing services it was still providing programming to the buildings providing programming to the various related accounts but defendant once once defendant sort of became aware directv was investigating him he stopped making payments on the account to start making payments on the project residential accounts and so for that country a dish it should be part of the last because directv was trying to figure out what was  during the defendant's argument and that is that when the fourth category of loss the programming losses defined it was given credit not only for payments that were made on behalf of that unit building's account he was given credit for payments made on any private residential receiver that was found in in that property so he received credit for all payments made on all accounts that were related to those particular propert just quickly around here i believe it was a few months before they directv turned off the accounts and i believe that i know it sounds very you know it and i imagine it could be part of the reason feeling and you don't choices and those choices are imposed upon it by the defendants chrome i understand that your honor but i think also the fact that many businesses on the other hand a business doesn't want to appear to be treating its customers one custom fraudulent residential account once people would still have the mold i do well in unit accounts so i do think that that is significant that they didn't start off those accounts  might have cut this off too quickly all right thanks to all counsel in this case the case will be taken under advisement and the court will take a ten