this is michael too soon for me but then there's a towel appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today on her behalf in my opening statement i and that they had to be forseeable to her now we pointed out that in saying that the government several concessions that we think show that finding that she that was on the cards and that's been tried to be recalled from the record that we provided also the government really relied on several areas speculation one that she could access information cause if she wishes and did so quote for a couple of accounts meeting her number at act the account through her telephone system and it was logged but there there's no showing that she saw in specific but again there's that was just a conclusion but there's no specific evidence of it and so our position is that these are rated concessions and get to show that the government's argument about her involvement was based on something that this really the issues not knowledge of conspiracy or upstate but other people doing the what is the in its specific agreement and we pointed to the application the creed be regarding the scope of the three or the pre sentence report was three thousand one hundred and fourteen so these are the numbers she's actually seeing that are verified not this four million forty eight thousand dollars number and also we gave an example of how wit basis for that particular as finding was that the bank accounts were controlled by michelle and i guess i understand why you would like the fund to be based on what for less than the forty thousand dollars so that's really what i'm taking my hat on in terms of their argument that so we have the government concessions think far less than forty thousand dollars with through the bank account her bank account w ok but i thought she controlled or had access to accounts that the money went through but not right and maybe i didn't understand the question there are there there are the net  she's not doing any of that checking for terms of filling up the cards what she's really doing is that at the end of it she takes the card as it goes to the a t m or withdraw the money so but the next thing cards that were sent to her they were all her addresses in one form or another so she controlled those cards i guess their physical cards as opposed to accounts and the an ok so i guess i think back from from the those details what about the reliance on her controlling is the physical cards of the counts to which the money flowed was not particularly sufficiently particular good afternoon this is for jenna when i'm special assistant united states attorney i represent the government that's matter may please the court essentially what we're looking here is an allegation of procedural error by the lower court  determined a loss calculation as well as a roll adjustment and i will briefly to discuss that but it seems that that's less less of what is being put forth at this time i think what's important here is to look at how the loss of about was calculated because the facts are a little convoluted the district court determined a loss amount centrally from two buckets of money money that went into net spend accounts that were opened in veterans name and then money that was deposited into the defendant's own bank accounts about more than thirty eight thousand dollars of the loss came from the net spend account and when we talk about the net spend account their net spending accounts were those cards were personally used by the defendant to make a t m withdrawals and then there's also net spend cards where the defendant using her phone called nets and checked the account balance for those account so that's where more than thirty eight thousand dollars of the loss comes from with regard to money into the defendant bank account there's a few examples of that but again to simplify the facts and to get us over that forty thousand dollars threshold i think the easiest number to look at is there was a three thousand five hundred dollars deposit direct deposit of a veteran's monthly benefit into chanel powells bank account so it appeared on her bank statement as a deposit from the department of treasury to the defendant so those two numbers alone thirty eight thousand dollars plus and then the three thousand five hundred dollars of that veterans benefit into ms pauwels own account put the court over the forty thousand dollars threshold now there are some other more complicated facts involving non veteran victims but i think at this stage it doesn't make sense to go into that however i'm happy to answer any questions from the court  but the key question here is whether we're over the forty thousand dollars threshold and whether that was conduct in which the defendant engaged as part of the scope of her conspiracy and what the court saw and what the government sees here is this is directly from the activity that the defendant engaged in and facilitated she used these particular cards she called to check the account balance of these particular accounts and she received a deposit of money into her bank account so this is not studly or ghetto as cited by the defendant where there's other individuals acting and making a tan with drawls with other net spend cards that the defendant doesn't touch these are only transactions to which the defendant is directly related or facilitating and that's why it is jointly undertaken conduct of the defendant as part of the scope of the conspiracy next turning to the foreseeability prong the the information provided so far and argued by by the defendant is that it was somewhat speculative we do know that she checked the balances but we don't know that she knew the specific balance of every card she possessed that was mailed her address so what i'd like to do and i think this will assist the court in looking at the foreseeability component of the last amount is to look at the numbers that are in the record we know that she herself possessed or accessed thirty two different nets and cards so to get a loss of over forty thousand dollars we're just threshold we're looking at here across thirty two dollars different prepaid cards that turns out to be anything that's over one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars of a loss per card gets us over forty thousand dollars and looking at that number and comparing what we know from the record how she used specific nets been cards we can see it was well over one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars that were withdrawn from each of those cards so looking at the pre sentence report for example we know that the prepaid card in just don't number one's name the defendant drew more than four thousand two hundred dollars in six connect nd of days using john doe number one the card using john doe number two card she withdrew two thousand seven hundred dollars in three days using john doe number three's card she withdrew six thousand five hundred dollars over six thousand five hundred dollars in eight days clearly it's reasonable to see that it's more than one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars per prepaid card she received because she's withdrawing more than that from each card and we can also look to the specific monthly veteran benefits that we know are being received from the record we know different veterans get different monthly amount and we have at least from the record the specific data points to the monthly benefit for six different veterans and those six different red veterans range on the low end from six hundred and fifty dollars all the way up to four thousand two hundred dollars if you average out those six to get a point you have an average benefit of two thousand three hundred dollars a month again well over our average threshold here one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars because each of those cards each of those thirty two dollars cards has a different veteran the name on it and that's how you foreseeable that the defendant points out the the four thousand nine hundred dollars number as just the amount that she withdrew but that's not a real add a fair statement of the facts those are the withdrawals where the defendant is depicted at the m machine that is with a t m surveillance footage but we know she made all of the withdrawals for the cards that were sent her addresses because she was using them at the same a t m locations and dates and times as the locations where we actually have the a t m but it so the evidence is clear that for all the cards sent to her home addresses she was the one using them all of that conduct shows that her role was significant thirty two cards across the street a year period where she lived in three different homes and even moved across state lines in that timeframe she checked the balance for accounts where the cards were not mailed to her but sent to someone else and one of those cases it was someone in florida she used her own bank account to facilitate the scheme veterans monthly payment was directed positive into her account she gave one of her in jamaica access to our bank account so that they could make withdrawals from the account without having to send it by wire and incurring transaction cost her role here was with significant at least more than the person who just goes and makes each am withdrawals she was sending the money directly to jamaica at other points via wire and she had to communicate with the others about the balance on the cards she had checked and about her change of address to continue receiving these prepaid cards in sum the district court considered the facts and thoughtfully apply them to the studly standard to contest and and there was no forty thousand dollars number well we did not go through the specific numbers your honor that is not referenced in the hearing but it's a reference in the record that is the pre sentence investigation report what the court did state which the government believes is sufficient findings supported by the record is in the appendix the joint appendix at one hundred and forty one dollars to forty two dollars in the transcript where the court specifically said  you know i agree that powell had no actual knowledge that it was high that it was this high of an amount of money but the test is reasonable for c l foreseeability and with all the cards that she was handling  the court found that it would strain credulity to say it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that this amount could be involved in the entire scheme and the court specifically compared the facts to studley and differentiated them yeah i guess i just a little bit e and i believe this is the studly facts relate more to with the scope of conduct and if studly were to apply here i think the defendant would have a very strong argument if we were trying to apply the veterans money that got sent to some of those other two thousand four hundred veterans cards but we're not looking to account that lost or attribute that loss to the defendant it's just the cards over which he had control so studley it was it was other people engaging with other other victims than defendants studly himself we're only holding the defendant accountable here for the accounts that she was directly touching ok thank welcome can i ask of respect for clarification there's this goller amount of one thousand five hundred and fifty nine dollars attributable to may and in the red brief she received unbeknown to her the source a veteran's direct deposit into her bank account then she was instructed to send some of that money to the defendant and others so she herself victim deposited three thousand dollars cash into mr cowles account as part of that funneling of money she also sent additional money to others so she had a loss of greater than three one thousand dollars but at the same had to just how much money a veteran money came into her account one deposit was three thousand five hundred dollars and there was also a nd deposit but that didn't get funneled toward the defendant ok so she got three thousand five hundred dollars in a veteran's benefit yes and then she deposited three thousand dollars that with the defendant account correct and then there's an additional fifteen  right because she sent two thousand dollars to a different person not but some of that was just her own money exactly all right i'm not sure the money is getting quite up to me but i guess we're dealing approximations for purposes of argument all right that's my only question thank you is for foreseeability and what was her green