guilty to ten counts of wire fraud he was ultimately sentenced to thirty seven months order to make restitution and similar terms the primary issue in this case is the amount of loss that was allegedly incurred during what was a basically real estate fraud case the probation department determined had recommended a loss of two point seven million dollars in restitution of approximately two point two million dollars the defendant was given some credit with respect to the loss about and of course the loss amount there's probably a different way to compute it i think when you take a restitution in a case like this it will back out certain costs that might not be counted if you're figuring what a loss is but the district court felt that those numbers were aligne and so i would say that whatever the last is was really what the restitution amount was now what happened there was a test there was basically there's the court might say there was hundreds of documents pages of documents and as to whether the loss was correct because these were foreclosures hud would take back the properties they had an arrangement with the county of san bernardino two different standards in the pre sentence report one for the guidelines last calculation the other for restitution as i understood it the restitution loss related to section three six  six and was based on the value of the property when received by the victim when return to the victim so that was the appraised value whereas for the guidelines loss it was the sales price received by head by the victor and the district court in fact used the restitution value for determining the guidelines last year started with that which would eliminate any of  the concerns about the discounted price because he wasn't relying on the sales value he was relying only on the appraised value why does something have particularly when further discounted by the  gave him six hundred ninety eight thousand dollars and change credit what the court didn't do it didn't give him the course mind obviously felt that there was some inflation of the last year and made an effort to try and correct that the situation that was presented in the present report and he gave the amount that it gave was a figure that was contained in one of the exhibits that were submitted as part of the defense sentencing council member and the government has taken the view that you are exhibits a b and c was simply alternate ways of arguing the same thing the government takes the position i don't know whether you agree with that or not but for determining that the total loss you first look to the amount of the fraudulently obtained the money that was not paid back and used that as as your base and then  collateral plus the cost of foreclosure and that gives you a figure and the government contends that your objections to that figure th deflated and should have been higher well them capital carefully that was a little off a laugh that's correct but not much that's absolutely correct there was they were basically separate properties there was a couple that overlapped with the district court should have done it the allegation that they were collusive discounts since the district court used the restitution number which was not based on sales was appraised value i don't understand why there is a need to do any further discounting at all you are to avoid that i think that the analysis that was done by the defense expert took that into consideration to an extent because he was working off of the pre sentence report or whoever did the  analysis either the defendant or the accountant and i believe i know some of the figures are a little bit difficult to follow but if the court determined what the loss was and then we have w essence would be a further loss then we should count that even if we were to take it like the court suggested that there was already a discount in there there should still be an additional discount for the difference then between value well we're not it's that would be one way to look at it but i think that with because the district court had all of that information in the pre sentence report and still felt that however whatever the evidence was  presented by the defense that it was an entitle to a further discount however the court arrived at it and that you're saying that notwithstanding even a further discount is required i guess i'm not understanding what the basis for that would be i think the further discount would be of the additional between on a and b there's a differential between what the defense expert put on and it through the defense view it felt that those prices were inflated even at the appraised value and that therefore there should have been some kind of an additional credit given if i could reserve on the other issues i do willing to submit o was taken into account by the district court when he subtracted that amount from the amount of restitution to arrive at the ultimate amount of restitution and amount of loss that the case with respect to that purports to reflect counts that were