point two isn't it clear that was just i don't think so so we've got testimony that spans several days you're assuming the judge had total recall the government at the sentencing hearing tendered a document  was an absolute number of the columns make it clear that those are not intended amounts that those are actual around the document was referenced in the p s r that the judge reviews and getting ready for sentencing and the judge trial maybe some innocuous testimony might be forgotten but i can tell you that it's not unusual for a district court judge at the time the thing to remember that significant testimony it's also not significant unheard of for the judge to lay out what the record evidence here that wasn't done especially just referring to the trial exhibit itself which is a very detailed chart of the amounts supposed to include a complete accounting under what congress except the separate issue i referring to the chart itself that the judge was relying on that the agent put together that is very detailed if the judge said anything during sentencing about the agent's testimony i could respond but the judge didn't and so this is again late thirty six for a problem so your honor despite right the judge heard all these things we don't so that was in connection to the total last judge did not is this is very disappointed about whether the statutory requirement was complied with nor did i see really any conflicting evidence nor did i hear any evidence suggesting  judge made statements and the issue was disposed of in the course of their judge said this is intended to last reviewed the document and reached a conclusion i don't think there's anything further for the defense to do or that the defense could have done  wrong here and what does this bring for future sentencings where we've got boss amounts for me to do the same thing we don't have the complete accounting guy days of testimony lots of exhibits and we have defense counsel to say this is not record prior to the sentencing and shortly after the trial government provided probation with exhibit thirty seven to an underlying documentation entered by the defendant and said you know it as you recall from the trial over ninety five pages forensic accounting involving all the sorts of things that the defendant identifies in his reply brief the kinds of things that one would want to hear about like estimates invoices cancelled checks references to cash payments all over all the kinds of things that would be necessary to arrive at actual loss figure and then not only that but there's this great summary chart provided by me and with the government and i like our summary chart i suppose i should not characterize it as such   but changing that this is a distribution of methamphetamine cases the same thing as and the government's view as pretending that the loss of my car was intended loss there was never any submission as to intended loss there was never any attempt by the government of the defendant to make an argument about intent of lost the defendant's only argument was that he should get the same last figure free trial and under developed last figure that his co defendant received when he pleaded guilty that is there's just no way that and unless there are additional questions about the thirty six sixty or i standard of reviews and determines the outcome of the case i think that the proof preservation of the issue has gone through the objection doesn't have to be so specific as to identify the statute that would be helpful the last mile was contested and it was  a practice going forward it should be adhered to congress certainly thought so