reason in terms of mister procedural reason one thing that can't be disputed is that there is a lot of conduct unproven and charge conduct put into the record by the government in this case in terms of asserting that mr dean i'm not going to consider the substance of those charges because i don't have the evidence and for me but what i am going to consider is the fact that those complaints were made to the prosecutor including by his siblings and the question to the court is what is the relevance of that if she had simply said and i agree i'm not considering that three times i would be able to make the argument what she did end up saying though unfortunately for the government from my perspective is what i am going to consider is the fact that these complaints were made and what is there about these complaints that has any relevan to the proceeding well it can only be because they're complaining of the ripping off and that is the central aspect of what she was going to go ahead for so be that he couldn't let her saying he's a good procedural argument that we've made has to do with the quantum of harmony emotional harm and obviously a lot of the sentencing was focused on emotional harm ranging from the victim's presenting to the court and the victim impact statements etc our position is that there is a procedural and run around the guidelines on that because there's no doubt that there was emotional harm suffered and trauma suffered by folks to go through what happened here but the guidelines specifically indicate that in cases of fraud we're not going to consider emotional harm unless  you have to ten victims and it's reflected in terms of that these people it's their family reunion they had suffered emotional harm whether severe or not there's plenty of letters talking about a lot of harm some physical ramifications that resulted from this my personal opinion it was rejected by the court but if there was ever a case where the financial guideline calculation severely under mind or under estimated the severeness of a crime this is that as was credibly pointed out by the court this guideline calculation was approximately one hundred and thirty seven thousand dollars worth of loss and it could have gone higher had we calculated the loss to be over one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for clarification the guideline calculation for the financial loss in this case was calculated simply by the deposits that were paid to mr dean it doesn't accurately count all of the plane tickets all of the extended family members who are financially impacted by this case this was the lowest financial guideline calculation we came up with and the defendant was afforded that benefit by the low guidelines fifteen to twenty one months the court a clear review of the record shows that the defendant did himself no favors by his letter to the court and his statements to the court which minimized his conduct after the emotional recounts from the victims in court  simply didn't get it and the court fairly explained that in her reasoning for the sentence why would you go into a sentencing and start laying out all this other fraud that was not s the defendant actually came and provided his name is danny starts and tried to provide the court with an explanation that this person was for a one k hard money lender from orlando and he actually discussed his communication with his siblings and his own statements in the court so to indicate that what the government said was somehow unsubstantiated is a little disingenuous in that the defendant tried to explain it away and therefore it's my view that he conceded what i said was actually truthful but be that as it may the court rejected all of those statements and specifically said three times that she was not going to consider that she considered his history the nature of the circumstances of the  crime and his concern that he's going to fall back into criminal conduct upon his release to the community which is supported by the record when the defendant said i need to get back to business i need to continue with this and make money her concerns were valid and the sentence was reasonable and i would submit lo and without any further questions from the court i'll rely on my papers thank you  behavior and so we know with fraud cases within the heartland of fraud cases we have bad intent because we have an intent to go and defraud people and so the question really isn't whether intent can or can't be considered the question is whether the intent here rises the level of something that's going to end up with a variance sentence double what the guy might say and so that's i think the logical argument in terms of this doesn't qualify as that room and then i guess segue in some way the government just up and said if there was ever a case where  variance was warranted this is the case and respect this isn't the case i mean we have a lot and believe me this one strike somewhat close to home in terms of people losing their vacation and extended family and how difficult that may or may not be but we have all sorts of fraud cases where are left destitute they're left having to lose their homes or having to lose whatever and here we lose dream vacations and i know that's painful but i respectfully submit that this isn't the case that stands out amongst others so thank you for your time