way into a benefit you're not entitled to and as long as you do the work then there's no crime committed even though you lied to the government to get that work i do not know if this was a fraud case or wire fraud case i think you would look at it differently but because the government charged that property i do believe that the the procurement cases are looked at differently than maybe what they call the government benefits case this was in the money to the government this wasn't  medicare fraud this was a contract that he had with the veterans administration office and with other government entity to do landscaping work and i've only just begun is there a finite amount of funds available for veterans to be in this program i guess you and i believe there are funds that are set aside for so didn't your client steal that from the people for whom it was intended from the government who intended it to go to veterans and instead it veterans and was unable to do so in this case because your client stole his father's identity and pretended to be a veteran lawyer i believe the contracts with them do state that contract but we said this court and barnes that proof of the government's property losses on necessary to prove a violation of six forty one a benefits type in bars the defendants had requested a long time and that they had falsified the loan documents and then they received that benefit of the money and then they didn't use that money and they're issues before you get to three i know you hadn't planned to argue too but i didn't i'm just confused about the argument you're making on to in the purpose of oral argument in part is to try to help us understand and so you said the evidence did not show that page stole his father's identification are you making some sort of argument that he didn't physically come in and take the social security corridor i'm trying to understand how you can even with a straight face make barry so i feel like i'm missing what you're trying to say there and i read it and read it and i'm not  the father and the letter and of course it would be who that you're gave the credibility right so how would that even be an issue for us because the father testified completely to the contrary never gave the many permission to use a social security number he says he did last united states versus harris came out about three months before the sentencing and the pre sentence report reflected that they found a lost amount of the government did not object to and one of the things that the government had stated was that they thought the should be a government's been the case and that the court should have been able to look at the one point seven million i believe was the amount that they're saying that mr page  deterring this person and deterring other people who might be inclined to do it and it seems to me a people know will have a as long as i do the work i can go take these veterans benefits and i'm going to go they're not deterred by the low issue and so they're not as deterred as they would be if they knew well a judge may take that into account and sentencing me to a higher number i realize criminals don't necessarily study the sensing guidelines of where they do that but this is the theory of the deterrent effect background that he had never had any contact with the criminal justice system before this offense not even a traffic ticket so for a person who's first arrested into the federal system the guy like grange was six to twelve months and compared to some other federal cases that's not a huge amount of time for somebody who's never even been one day in jail twelve months this is a long time to be in jail and also the aggravated identity theft for going to run at least one would be consecutive so his sentence would have been thirty six months so i do believe that six twelve months is a deterrent was the sentencing guideline right but the question is a really what you believe or what i believe the question is whether it was improper for the sentencing court to believe that because it we the sentencing judge has a lot of discretion here and so we have to defer to that even if i might be given a different sense or you would have given a different sense the question is was it in a proper sense  that's why i asked about the deterrent effect is it is it improper for the judge to consider that maybe we need to throw the book at this person a little bit harder than the sensing guidelines to make the point that we treat these veterans programs what is so different about this case than any other procurements and harris that was set aside for i believe was minorities and women so that is correct but i think the guidelines do take into account by the office of what for this type of us and so yes support may look at a deterrent factor but i think in this case she gave the last amount too much weight because of court ha ruled that i believe they had even mentioned that you know mr page would have gotten these contracts and did no work and just said i'm going to take this money and i'm going to spend it on myself but all the contracts were completed and the i'll say thank you and present it respectfully urge the court to affirm the sentence and conviction on as the court noted this was a multiple day jury trial and the jury convicted the defendant mr page of one count of theft of government property and two counts of aggravated identity theft after hearing evidence over those days the conviction should be a d because the evidence supports the jury's decision specifically during this trial to secure us why this case take four days to try your honor explaining the intricacies of the government if there were no stipulations and explaining the intricacies of all the government contract you had got on trial danny as your star witness for the morning  people from the veterans administration the department of the army air force explaining how this contract system worked so there was a lot of boring testimony and a during this trial the jury heard that the defendant himself was not a veteran they heard that he stole the identity of his own father who was not only of that friend but it was a combat veteran from the vietnam era we heard of the jury heard that the defendant misrepresented his father's ownership interest in the defendant's businesses and as a result of that the  businesses day when that is why they had been set aside and that was why we pursued the case and how about the argument that this case wasn't properly charge that you should charge some fersen of fraud like wire fraud or mail fraud or whatever the right fraud is rather then what you did charge we could have charged wire fraud we could have charged mail fraud we could have added probably about twenty other counts of aggravated by dynegy theft most of the charging decisions were a tactical decision and as we assessed the case because this was significantly affected disabled veterans we thought that def just government property was the most appropriate charge to file but the court is correct there could have been other charges numerous other charges that we could have so that was the evidence but having charged that then have to mean the argument is that really the government needed this work to be done and it was done so that's the argument that mr page is making a correct your honor and  is court in the barn's decision has expressly rejected that the purpose of the funds was not to have custodial work done at a government facility the purpose of the funds was not to have landscaping that was a that was an aside the purpose of the phones of the intended purpose of the film was to allow disabled veterans to have an advantage in getting government contracts to  precluded by the defendants and because it's hard for disabled veterans to get jobs it is hard for them to get jobs they have also made a sacrifice that we respect and admire and should own so in a lot of ways not always suffer more frequently from those kinds of effects than those who do have employment is that a fair that is absolute sexualization of a program like this yes and unfortunately veterans in general and disabled veterans specifically are more likely to have those sorts of negative consequences going on the line so that was the evidence very clearly supported the theft convictions and very clearly based on the guidelines the grange was six to twelve months the district judge after laying out all of these ten factors departed only four levels and stayed with it within a new range of fifteen to twenty one months sentenced the defendant for twenty one months some of the factors that the just for court noted clearly or contemplated by the thirty five fifty three evacuees and clearly he had been told specifically by the magistrate judge when he was arrested and had his initial appearance and released on this case no more business do not seek any more business from the government other factors that the district court specifically articulated to support this up or variance the harm this is a general that the charge was just a general six forty one charge harm that the defendant ca disabled veterans in the trial we were allowed to bring in i believe it was two actual disabled veterans who had businesses who had bid on the same contracts that the defendant had bid on and they had lost out as to pace but sort of more so that you can understand how the program works not only to show how the good of the program work but to basically humanize it your honor it's didn't want to be something that well the people who care about this are government bureaucrats but wanted to show you know there are real people who are harmed by a village in have evidence about mr page right they did not know mr payson at all they just said i  other reasons for the upward departure the defendant falsified his core papers that he filed with the texas secretary of state and other places they were complete lies in those documents that is a separate crime  itself again another charge that could have been filed but was not but the district court probably took that into account as she decided what would be an appropriate sentence of this case another thing of the defendant did came out during the trial he filed a false police report the way this scheme basically unfolded the defendant's girlfriend they had a falling out and she told the defendant's father one of the defendants had been doing in retaliation for that the defendant filed a police report with the mckinney police department alleging ironically that his girlfriend had committed identity not of course the sops of ns other factors the defendant's failure to pay taxes on the money he stole that is also a separate crime kind of a double dip so the defendant's not only is he received in this money which one are you contending it is we're considering you're on a hook how about this for a lawyer and it applies to both and i understand the terms are different to mean different things unfortunately they are frequently use use it a reason for departure within the guidelines that's a that's a guidelines sentence although a departure versus a variance where you say well i don't know what this says but i have these concerns and you don't march up the steps of which one are you contending the judge agree to call it one of the other factors that the courts cited specifically in the statement of reasons and during the sentencing hearing was the defended then attempted to transfer a lot of the money he had stolen to ms mother particular cases the service disabled veterans that i know it's a set aside and harris that this circuit ruled that you know the primary benefit of these contracts exist first and foremost to serve the you're saying he kind of already the guidelines was already rather full some number and they didn't need to go beyond that issue and that w