and whether you violate them so for example one of the conditions that the district court found that he violated was that he wasn't truthful in this month's report and the basis for that was he reported employment at r y rodrigue worth of we work clearly there was no misrepresentation or no no one can understand that he was working in the sense that he had some full time job there at a part time job there one dollar was suggests that he was doing exactly what they have and showed he was doing that he she talked to him on doing some consulting informally you know the preponderance of the evidence working for his his wife yes that was the third or i forget which which is that allegation number five but yeah there didn't seem to be any any evidence that he was really employed by her and more than that and i mean is that the condition was that a report a change and in the employment whatever he was doing with this wife's business likely he had done from the question i didn't see in the record months before that although i might have been i missed him but i mean he's employed or not employed and he keeps listing himself as employed thing is is he messed representing i mean what's the purpose of this form they want to know whether he's employed is he working at a job right and you look at that if it sells one dollar for one hour a week no one's going to think that that's a job and that's them that's that's a report that he chose to put it down and they gave too much information instead and not enough seems hardly a reason to send them back to prison i suggest that if that's what the court ultimately finds that you're you re man because you know as in any case in district court once you get rid of part of it then it change you describe a little more detail i'm trying to figure out sophisticated yeah i'm a little bit disappointed your son wasn't part of that i understood that it was some sort of investment scheme doing overseas that he was working with a bunch of people  good morning hours may please the court kathy on behalf of the united states for you is the defendant that engaged in a pattern of deception first he duped his underlying victims over thirty of them investing in a scheme in which he promised returns of up to twenty percent of those losses amounted over to a staggering three point five million dollars saddled with that debt he then started supervise released and then attempted to to see his probation officer relating to his employment and his ass us assets with which the district court agreed now he stands before you asking you to second guess every way the factual determination is made by the district court all in an attempt to avoid accountability however based on the a political standard of review defendant cannot show that the factual findings by the district court were so illogical so impossible or without any inferences from the factual record to be made now if i may i'd like to begin with a little context as defendant said in his reply papers context matters and so all three of these allegations we've been talking about them separately but they actually occurred very close in time  line that is a sign another sign for example your honor is that around the same time that he said he stopped working for our guess is when he started doing this work on behalf of his wife and i think it's a logical for this court the streets are helping out as w ways you like to run a business is the you like to take into consideration all the money you pay your employees so that they're going to get written off as a as a cost and you therefore don't count your profit so high is there any evidence at all that you paid him  but but there is and if there's no evidence that she paid him was he employed by her i mean or sensitive i don't want to he was never introgression if she did not pay him was he employed i think in this case he was still employed by her even even though he wasn't being paid yes your honor so how do you get there and that's not in addition to doing work on behalf of his wife there's also testimony in the record that monthly restitution is tied to his individual income not the household and bringing in every month and then if i may or honor there was a discussion about the dollar amount and defense counsel said a dollar a week gets you nothing it's a token in this case it actually gets you a lot because defended by fritz by stating that was being employed by our i would you guess when he fact wasn't it did two things one it presented that he was gainfully employed and so the probation officer wouldn't be following up to say hey you need to get another job you still have three point five million dollars out  know a dollar and of unemployment and if i'm of relational officer and i really want to be earning money for example so that we can start paying over the restitution i think when he says i'm only earning of dollar i might have a word with him sure and and i can't speak to the workload of probation officers and how many people that they're supervising and this he had only done this you know for two months and then the probation officer followed immediately immediately up with his employer to see what was going on and that's when it was discovered and she surely rodrigo's the employer told the probation officer that he wasn't in fact employed by them but as to the dollar a week it gets defendant something else it gets him if he says he's only making a dollar a month he pays the minimum of restitution so typically the amount is either ten percent of your monthly income or the hundred dollars a month and by saying he's only making a dollar then he only has to pay the hundred dollars or a month versus more and at the same time again context he's working on behalf of his wife helping her grow his business without being compensated without listing that and so none of that is going towards restitution and the district calculated it's a calculated per month and i believe it's ten percent of that income of that of the gross i believe so your honor and again there there was some reference to common sense by defense counsel and i would submit to your honor's based on this record before before this just for court who is in the unique position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses that testified testified before her that it was common sensical and it was logical and it was possible that defendant had violated each of these supervised release conditions the the standard of review isn't that whether it was possible or plausible not whether this court would disagree you agree with that we should then remain under the district court for further consideration of i think if you reverse on to be your firm on at least one it would be still sufficient to staines the revocation of supervise release and i agree with my colleague that you would vacate the the judgment at least to the overturn counts and then remain and for the district court to rescind its because as i see stated it does affect defendants going forward to ok supervise case though isn't about avoiding restitution i assume that that maybe just records concern but was thought to go on violations and one thing the government just said didn't make a lot of sense to me that is misleading the court and saying that he wasn't ploy which in any case would seem to increase as restitution obligation and if what he should have said was left that blank then that would obviously diminishes restitution obligation back down the minimum which is what happened so i don't think that supports the argument but beyond that i think that the evidence here is thin the nonexistent