all of these this morning we've read your priests the authority cited in your priests looked at the record you have limited time so feel free to get to the heart of your argument make the points that you  feel are the most important you're unlikely to be able to say everything that you want to say but try to keep the key points and mine are probably going to have some questions this morning be mindful of the clock unfortunately i represent myself and we all know what that means about me at this point in time but that all being said i don't have a lot to say on this one procedurally i think it's pretty straightforward procedural issues and so in so far as you've argued that there were fines that we should be reviewing whether funds were available for payment from or on behalf of  well then even on a procedural bases there once we get into the rule forty four dollars you know there's there's a series of inquiries there but then once we get to the point which we're ordering funds to be redeposited then i would say that procedurally there is a question of whether or not the court the district or had any jurisdiction to do that and at the end of the day the only basis that was cited by the district court was actually to have been hers it was i have to give  hertzberg credit for that he's the one that found the footnotes even suggest that there was a procedure in place to justify this well right so if so what what you're procedural argument seems to me the procedural arguments have to be what the district court really gave you due process and is notice and an opportunity to be heard about this right yes and whether or not they're also procedural bar as to the situation even  curring and the case was relatively straight felt that that that's i mean that sent sounds to me like a merits determination insofar as your argument as the district court was once you've already held that the defendants are in the chair so there is a procedural bar and i would say i could say that decision was procedurally impossible to be made once the determination had been made earlier in the docket that you make an argument that the district court erred in dispersing funds to the treasury too soon because the court should have waited until point counsel submitted vouchers but i don't see how you have a stake in that issue why you are standing plane yes ma'am that goes to the procedure outlined for the for the implementation of three thousand and six and yet so in order to make it you have to you have to already have funds available the determination was made that the funds belong to the defendant and the amount that belongs to the defendant all those determinations have to be made in context of the availability question and so you have to have all those things in place before you then go in and order an amount to be put into direct history here then you're just made an arbitrary determination they are used on to take  twenty one that we were pay and there is no basis for there is no increase before that of any meaning and definitely not anything as contemplate on the c t a because the c t a doesn't even come into effect until like i said  makes the suggestion much much much much later in the process that perhaps in hindsight this should have been the framework we proceeded under or maybe this was the a political thing to thought about that point in time there's already been the me ask you this question understanding that we can only review the rip the procedural aspects of this not the merits as judge prior's talked about one of the the text of the statute talks about an appropriate inquiry you think that's something we can look at whether the inquiry was appropriate i think that is one of the most important points because that goes back to you know you sent in your trigger  that and like i said to the extent we're going to retroactively apply the c g a as being the basis for the entire increase being started i think like i said the failure to make those initial determinations off the bat sort of precludes you know in hindsight going back and saying oh oh procedurally we were authorized to do this because we're following the procedure laid out in a c g a when that was never the  basis you know we started from this as a request for refunds from the family and then once the family decided they did not want refunds then we procedurally into something else accounting of the fines and then went and gave you multiple opportunities to show what fees had been hired and what he said not and with that we can't get into the merits  determination but if it is the question is whether there was an appropriate inquiry the district court time and again gave you an opportunity to make that showing isn't that true because i was suggest to you judge that the decision to remove the front of the made for any inquiry was i mean he literally at the beginning of the process says i'm taking this my deposit fifteen thousand dollars and we're going to refund it to the family then to have that power so this point to ensure we are where public funds are being used to pay for representation of indigent defense is it seems pretty clear to me that the statute gives the court in authority to make an appropriate inquiry to make sure that funds that are available can be paid back to the government and i don't what am i missing doesn't the district court have the authority to do that on its own no sir not when they she's already determined that there are no funds available that's the point of the procedural bar from the minute once you make the determination that the defendant has no funds available that pretty much conclude you can come back and say oh but wait there are funds available somebody paid the attorney now is that not the defendant's money but is not even something you weren't i do not think there's a basis in the case law for that ever happened the only time i read about what it was i correct in my recitation of what you do in your game i would disagree with your interpretation of it as he asked it to be put money back right no the checks were never nothing was ever returned didn't get some of the money now so the entire fifteen is still in escrow because you appealed you were going to get eight thousand yeah yeah the court determined that some of those feet should go back to the far right yes that was ultimately one of the hold it's ok but again it seems to me if you just look at the text of the statute it cuts out this idea that the district court can't make this determination for any defendant wants and it should see is de mint determined because this is what  it's whenever the united states magistrate judge or that cool word finds that funds are available for payment from or on behalf of a person furnished representation that is this is already a person who's been determined to be constitutionally required to have a right to representation it may authorize or direct these that such funds be paid to the appointed attorney right but the trigger there is that the prerequisite holdings must have been made and you can't simultaneously hold that the person is indigent and yet has funds available for all the see that's just the point i was just making it seems to me that this statute expressly contemplates that there can be an appointment may for indigen representation there's been a determination that this person is ended and has owed representation but nevertheless the magistrate judge or cooler can find that there are funds available for that for the payment of that representation at least partial payment of that representation that that seems to cut squarely against your art but again judge i think we're where  wasn't the terms the inquiry into availability has nothing to do with how much time i put in that case you have to make the decision that the local fifteen he set aside was ever available and that's the issue procedurally you cannot proceed have satisfy our donors funds are currently available and that has a very specific definition it's not a basis of part of the merit determination it's literally the prerequisite for you can even proceed with talking about whether or not you're going to use the funds for this or that you have to deem them available and that's the one million dollars question that determination was never made or fifteen pounds a question well  that i would argue to the judge at the opposite determination have been made over and over again that the funds belong to the defendants and not from rd parties and that's the larger issue here judge seltzer judge prior to you all have any  the proceedings that the funds belong to the defendants and of the defendants had then you know that's where we are but i would argue the other problem with that is that's not how we start that was something like i said i didn't stars for credit for that that was an idea that came up at almost the end of the process that we go back and try to pretend that that was the basis on which we started that's all i have thank you very much thank you we appreciate