just now that that it was meant to describe mr abbott cautious evasion of pretrial services and that that's evidence that he's that the judge was punishing mr abu ghosh for exercising his th the memorize the government and its response said no the end run phrase was about mr abu ghosh his failure to pre clear has tendering of checks in excess of the terms of his pretrial release and your reply doesn't doesn't take that up why shouldn't we accept the government's reasonable interpretation of those record events right the ship the court's interpretation and wrong ends and asian is exactly what actually articulated it was to remove the trial penalty that he was going to offer exceptions of responsibility points both for someone who pleaded guilty but also make them available in appropriate circumstances someone who went to trial to remove the penalty are going to trial in the event that the defendant would so choose and i recognize that there were comments that  might be thought to create the parents of impropriety when the judge talked about the need for experience on the part of attorneys and judges but but at the end of the day and during the sentencing hearing none of that was mentioned whatsoever it was all the the evidence of the bad checks in loudon county in april th jan that was the the basis the stated basis and the weeks before trial which wasn't at issue here criminal offense wasn't i mean he was one of the checks supposedly was phony and he's drawing money out from it so he's committing a criminal offense while he's in between his indictment and the trial date and  reading on the face of it objectively look looking at it without getting into subjective motivations of the judge was i mean i thought i think it be remarkable if he gave him a bump for  reason and one reason only for refusing to give the defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility and that was the fact that the defendant had cashed fake checks and allowed in the county while he was after his guilty plea while he was pending sentencing that was both criminal and did not comply with the court's order that the defendant notify pretrial services whenever he cash a check over a one thousand dollars just for clarity of the court's order my assumption was that there was a role for getting clearance from the corps from the the office are about for example if you discussion of the fact that for example if he had to pay rent that there would be a way he could pay rent even if it was over a one thousand dollars or similarly if he had a car payment that payment is something that could be made so clearly when this was a discussion that car before the order was entered the parties invasion circumstances in which he might have to get preclearance here he didn't even attempt to which i brought even a court point that we have to did he have  to the way you framed it hadn't thought about this but you said that was a prohibition of cashing checks over a one thousand dollars without the approval of the precise pretrial services group but he didn't cash these memorize so it does seem that it's important to the government's theory whether there was some interaction with pretrial services other than the mandated interview that might be the preponderance of the evidence that the checks were patient and that there was every reason for the defendant to believe they were fictitious the court then went on to stay so he didn't end wrong on contacting the probation office both mentioned and on the occasion of opening up a new bank account which was also in violation of this course or and so that and ron comment was plainly about the requirement that he get pretrial services approval before engaging transactions with check for a one thousand dollars later on the hearing when they defined asked to to be able to sell surrender and the court denied that request the court again use this and run around probation language but again tied it to his failure to create trials approval the court said by doing an end run on the probation office is review by opening bank accounts one supposed to help checking them with them st by negotiating check otherwise that the basis of the district court's denial of accepting responsibility on the uk is the standard reasonable doubt you know our brief didn't ultimately find pieces setting forth a from another case suggesting that when the court this court entertains a reasonable doubt about whether there was constitutional error in the sentencing and something and  the comment about comments about trial in the you know getting rid of the trial penalty or creating opportunity for lawyers and judges to get trial experience all of those comments were made  at sentencing and if there were not the intervening handling of the bad check is there any question it because the government is the government's position that that would have not  so i certainly for the th amendment we have not argued that district court may deny acceptance of responsibility because the defendant invoked his th amendment rights although court was saying because you chose to plead guilty and exercising your constitutional right to go to trial i am not awarding acceptance of responsibility  i'm not i guess i don't know the answer to that i don't know if that's permissible or arguably permissible but it's certainly not what occurred here it doesn't appear to be what occurred here as the judge announced his own policy he said trial and he makes that very clear and very explicit and i guess the question is even if we find no error you know what what to make of that is that a problem is that something that  discovery and so there was no yes he said it would be a good thing to have more trials and i have a policy that allows the trend to get accepted responsibility and certainly he was frustrated after he accepted the guilty a little bit of a confusion about the government's position on the criminal conduct that's relevant to the acceptance of responsibility because as i understand that you what you are  any person who died meant criminal conduct is relevant to acceptance of responsibility but but the government consistent with the defendant took the position that the earlier the two thousand and seventeen fairfax where you didn't stand in  equally relevant i think they're relevant for different purposes but i think the government's view that any person died mange criminal conduct is relevant for the responsibility as the guidelines h been written by in this particular case because the government knew about this post indictment conduct and nonetheless entered a plea agreement with that knowledge and which the government agreed to give the defendant percept subsequent law county conduct which post dated they agreement was not conduct the government knew about at the time and the government ultimately agreed with pretrial and court that continued criminal conduct and continued fraud the district court said all these things that you think the district court should know said it was while it looked jackson