purpose behind the acceptance of responsibility adjustment is to encourage accused to admit wrongdoing and spare the government the expense burden and risk of prosecuting but if you did you have to prove that you wouldn't have had to defraud which is required for insider trading case now mr president contested that at trial by attempting to introduce evidence in the form of witnesses and in the form of the long term that he did not have the proper state of mind that witness was david's t mac showing that he could have bought much more stock than he did if you were really trying to conduct insider trading in addition throughout closing argument mr privates attorney his company well in this case there was a trading window that would there was one person who was responsible for announcing to people to remind them whether in fact the trading window was closed and there were various occurrences that could way well i want to make sure that i'm answering that question exactly precisely and there and now see i'm not suggesting that what he did was not something they should have that made it but i'm wondering if you had some basis t misspoke and taken the and taken the tipping charge to trial his argument was that he pled guilty to one that would influence the other and therefore he wanted to wait and see when he was acquitted and he  saying you know well the window was open and you know i'm sorry now but you know the window was open in other words still saying i didn't think i was doing anything wrong i did not intend to you know you have only good morning i mean just call nolan i represent mr krevin and represented him in trial below i think it's important to remember the standard to remind the court of the standard i don't believe the government proposed the correct standard clear air in both situations clear in the exceptions the responsibility in clear air in the findings of fact necessary to support the average behavior and i think that since we're looking at the guidelines when it was the totality of circumstances for average behavior and if we look at the he hadn't done it but what's so interesting is that throughout the trial and throughout the pristina represented to the court that kind of person that this record shows you what exact circumstances only usual circumstances of this particular week this was begin with the bubble this was march march third i think that week and the fact that he's working in a company that's trying to sell him stock and he thinks highly of that company  sales certainly he took advantage of a serious error by the president of the company who had no consequences from this rather than the employee who was only seriously complying we're going to misuse information which they it by being insiders well you know as i said of the jury i don't think the employee should be allowed to trade at all in this type of industry at that time because they are constantly in possession of material information he admitted when he  have questions about whether it was or was not a good deal but he's in possession of far more information and it's a constant possession of information what was that  if he did not testify at trial he voluntarily closed his desk and she voluntarily went to the f c c he voluntarily testified he did nothing through the trial other than the court i suppose commenting that counsel aggressively defended him but other than that he did nothing to in fact challenge any of the factual assertions and really had very little choice but to go to trial i also think that part of the p case that would have been appropriate for resolution it had not been the case had there not been charges that that involved significant allegations of attempting i also think that that the decision that mr krevin had to make when he was given the ten minute recess was not an easy decision for him i think he showed a tremendous amount of emotion and of remorse and guilt and i think that his background  reason and the applicability of g two is not applicable then we would have no problem with that but we're concerned that under g two the trial court then would be mandated to give the sentence under the guidelines i also think the protect ac specific findings it does but it also i think gives the court the opportunity to affirm without specific findings in other words i don't think that they are required by that that it doesn't preclude this court affirming the sentence as long as