hoping to i keep watching the weather you may please the court the district court reversibility varied by ordering restitution in this case because the expenses incurred during a private investigation that was requested by the government are not covered under section three thousand six hundred and sixty three dollars before the mandatory victim restitution act requires defendants to reimburse the victim for lost income necessary childcare transportation and other expenses incurred during the participation or prosecution of the offense in law goes versus united states supreme court held that a company's private expenses for private investigation that took place prior to the government's investigation and desecration of prosecution are not covered under subsection before but it left open whether those expenses would be covered where the government requested the investigation but the court's analysis goes of the phrase other expenses shows that the five hundred and fifty two thousand that b p narrowly construed the term other expenses and stated that lost income child care expenses and transportation expenses are the kind of expenses a victim would incur when it meets travels to meet with the government was not before the court because the corporation in that case did the investigation before the government prosecution the court left over open whether these expenses would be covered as other expenses if the government requested the investigation but the court's analysis of the phrase the judicial construe the statutory construction of the phrase other expenses is undeniable the court e u is the principle of s to say that the phrase other expenses was confined by the terms preceding it and that it that the term other expenses does not cover expenses for accountants expenses for lawyers expenses for experts which are just the kind of expenses that the peace spent in this case in his private investigation of the government's expense so the supreme court me a slave sliced off a small end of a loaf of bread because the technical issue was not in front of him but that i cannot do or contradict the fact that the supreme court  under you know he knows the terror so c is doesn't change and the fact that the government outsources its investigation to somebody else to some corporation doesn't bring those expenses within the statutory construction of the terms and the supreme court and by the way when the corporation made that argument goes the supreme court said look we're interpret in the statute here and we're not saying you can't get reimbursed you still have the remedy to go soon this person to go sue the person for the money so the supreme court considered that argument said go soon the courts are available to you but that doesn't change the statutory construction i don't support the united states the canons of construction have absolutely no application in this case because they would defeat congressional intent to make the victim who is in this case corporation the scenario where an individual person goes down to the f b i office and gives an interview participates in the investigation or when let's say an individual person goes down to the courthouse to testify  specifically enumerated expenses for those types of activities that where the person lost income where they incurred childcare expenses and transportation now instead of an office visit in this case we have b p who is a corporation the f b i instead of asking the victim to come down to the office for an interview ask b p to participate by conducting its own computer forensics to advance the investigation and this is covered by the residual catch all phrase other expenses b p is not going to incur childcare costs but congress wanted to make sure that b p could recover its participation in the investigation those costs and in this case the f b i asked b p to do these things to advance the investigation in the most efficient way sure under the law those case if and under those facts that would be investigation began and they would not be recoverable but in this case three hours after b p received the extortion e mail the immediately contacted the f b i and after that the f b i directed them to conduct computer forensics software serve a research audio file reviews an employee over time in order to those two we have one of the proper kinds of expenses for which reimbursement and the other what is the proper kind of investigation for which reimbursement is probably in that final or next to last paragraph the supreme court was saying a private investigation of the direction of the government might be the proper kind of investigation but you still have a serious problem where the proper kinds of expenses you say that all necessary expenses i think you can correct me that's not quite what you said that all necessary expenses are reimbursed i can certainly say that we may well find miriam saying a private investigation the direction given is that covered investigation but i'm very troubled by what the majority over at the court said is true the importance of the kinds of expenses that congress identified and you would just work brush those aside and say all corporation heard it participate in a criminal investigation that the facts that we have here and if congress did not want those expenses to be recovered it would have la limitation focused very heavily on the during the investigation so again getting back to my point i don't know how else a corporation would participate in a criminal investigation during an investigation and incur costs that they are asked to incur to advance and participate a criminal investigation and then not be recovered by we had to dissipate in the government's investigation as well and if they were would they the expenses of these categories here maybe maybe not congress certainly could have sent them but it seems to me that the premise for these expenses seems to be individuals not corporations you look at what's covered by the statute the types of offenses that are covered are bank fraud who's the victim there at the bank fraud the in it and that situation is the financial institution that you're saying this is this very substance this is for corporate employees so in order to have that full range of coverage for different types of victims congress and numerated certain expenses for the infant individuals but the residual did leave open that protection for corporations and there's no doubt that the statute does cover victims that are corporations that is inside the largest opinion that the port supreme court recognized a there was the bank or the financial institution and in chan i realize that is a district court case but again there you had a company who was incurring cost of document compilations an employee preparations for interviews with the government and they incurred during participation in the securities fraud investigation in the court said those were recoverable under this statute the only limitation  stacey is that the expenses must be necessary and incurred during the participation in a criminal investigation or government prosecution and there's no dispute in this case your honor that all of the expenses in this defendant as the perpetrator in this offense and i'd like to remind the court that none of these expenses would have been incurred had it not been for the defendants extortion of b p in this case and judge blake was very careful to commit the types of expenses that were not incurred during the criminal investigation or prosecution because the this case that squarely within the confines of law goes it is not a private the government said that the principle of statutory construction don't apply here but that means the government's complains with the supreme court not this court this is supreme court are already applied those principles to the phrase other expenses number two the government says well how else would corporation participate in the government's investigation and law goes is very clear on page sixteen when it talks  s go down to meet with the government or testify so yes if you go down and meet with the government and testify corp employees can get those expenses but that's far different than what happened here and finally he failed to adequately brief it and the district court of loud some expenses that were involved with the governments with the preparation for employees to meet with government witnesses bu does allow other expenses under law goes like insurance coverage potential checks for background of employees paralegal fees clerks fees lawyers fees and so those cases just don't h