to matthew in this case the appellate contends that the restitution order was improper as to mr matthew this court has consistently held that the scope of restitution is limited by the scope of the indictment both temp role and otherwise this is because the purpose of restitution of course is to compensate victims and not punish not for punishment this court has consistently said that restitution cannot be awarded for losses attributable to conduct outside the temporal scheme charged the same is true for conduct not charged as part of the scheme that's delhi on seven twenty eight f third at five o seven citing sharma here though the government suggests that the court simply do away with will settle precedent that limits restitution to conduct alleged are meaningless because while west will restitution can be awarded when he scheme is alleged indictment for actions pursuant to the alleged scheme or when the parties agree to enlarge the scope of restitution in a plea agreement neither of the situations is present here the government indicted mr matthew on to eighteen u s c ten twenty eight there is no scheme conspiracy or pattern as an element of this often it's the government concedes that the indictment alleges that on one date september twenty third two thousand and eleven mr matthew possessed five or more authentic haitian features which were health insurance claims numbers the factual resume properly sets forth the elements which do not include a steamer pattern in that case there was no further greenman between the parties i don't have a case for you in valving analysis of restitution soley for a conviction of eighteen u s c ten twenty eight and neither does the government have a case that expands justifying this court's precedent in cases where there is no scheme pattern or conspiracy alleged because there isn't one the government typically charges these cases as conspiracy to commit health care fraud the government did here as timid mr matthews spouse in the related case clearly the government knows how to properly charge cases to attain restitution awards in schemes it chose not to charge this case in a manner that would justify an expanded scope of restitution instead where you're going to tell us what the restitution should be yes or instead the government urges you to turn the court's precedent on your head on its head and hold that president falls away when the government makes charging government argues that mr matthews possession of the authentication features was direct and proximate cause of medicare's loss even if without conceding this point proximate the proximate cause prong of causation was shown the government offers no support for the proposition that the direct prong of cons of causation would be met by the mere possession of authentication features on one date he stole them for to gain an economic benefit didn't he that yes he admitted that that he possessed and to gain an economic benefit you contesting that he did not get any economic benefit because the crime charged is simply a possession crime are you stating that the amount that was a was not appropriate because it is i understood the argument that it included amounts that apparently were made or paid by the government by medicaid medicare before the date alleged in the indictment it emitted to the defendant i think both of those things are correct judging the heart the court rejected the analysis in months c s that mere possession involving future use of counterfeit securities was enough to find a direct and cross proximate cause ation for restitution a case in which a district court erred in awarding restitution that exceeded the temporal scope of an actual scheme alleged in an indictment you said the daily on was quote a classic case of trying to expand beyond the plainly and multiple brigades around a briefing to determine loss of restitution but at the end of the day the district court noted that there was a quote very dim tenuous connection between the government's offer proof and the restitution figure being sought by the government in this case  it also set forth this court standard which is the m p r a authorizes restitution that is directly in proximately caused by defendant's oftens of conviction but limited to the actual loss caused by the oftens of conviction and  moreover the district court found that the government did not show by a preponderance of the evidence a conspiracy to commit health care fraud so in short there was no scheme alleged there was no scheme proven there was restitution ward outside the two there was no meeting of the minds or plea papers indicating that the parties agreed to expand restitution and it is this case is to know  you said earlier there's the government concedes there is no scheme involved here does the government also concede that there's no need there was no meeting of them regarding expanding the temple scope i don't think the government has conceded that in their briefing but the this case judge duncan has a lot of bad facts if you read the timeline it was unusual and in texas we would call it snake bit so i don't think there was a meeting of the minds on pretty much anything during the duration of the the clearly in the amounts predating september twenty third two thousand and eleven are incorrect and there may be other amounts that were improperly included and that may be addressed on  please the court christina williams for the government appellant asks this court to disregard the district court's detail factual findings after four days of evidentiary hearing hearing solely focused on the issue of restitution however this court should affirm the district court's restitution award for three reasons first the district court's restitution award was clearly limited to the offense of conviction second there is ample evidence in the record to support the restitution amount and as the you do you disagree with your argument regarding cutting off restitution september twentieth yes your honor the government contends that the standard under the mandatory victim's restitution act met here that that the restitution award was clearly linked to the direct and proximate cause of the offense of conviction and as counsel noted it would be that would be true if there were some kind of a conspiracy charge or some charge of an overall scheme but i'm sure you notice that there is none here yes your honor there the district court found that there was no health care fraud scheme here however the language of the indictment itself we believe is not limited necessarily to september twenty third two thousand and eleven the united states on or about september twenty third two thousand and eleven mathy did knowingly possess with the intent to use five or more health care numbers that's record at seventeen and possession is not necessarily limited to that specific date you know certainly is there anything in the factual basis starting interrupt your sentence but my question is pertinent to what i think you are about is there anything in the factual basis or any other document in the record that suggests that the defendant's possession of this information predated or had been prior to september twentieth yes your honor there is tremendous evidence in the records that affect first their copies of the print outs that mr matthew took from parkland that has all of the patient identities as well as his hand written notes with over thirteen hundred names and the date on the bottom of those it's time stamped before the indictment there dated in two thousand and ten and two thousand and eleven and that's a record twenty eight twenty four to thirty nine we also witness statements of dallas home company employee has directed them to solicit the event the individuals sign these individuals that we know of at least sixteen of those and that's what the restitution award is based on and those statements are record twenty eight twenty to twenty three and the finally completing the cosily we have the medicare bill showing the amounts billed by dallas home health care for these specific individuals and the dates on which they were billed the date on which medicare was paid so the causal link is continued all the way through in the record evidence to show that this to these identities were possessed as early as two thousand and nine and that he had intended in fact mr matthew admits in his factual resume that he took these with the intent for economic gain and that then these were billed to medicare and certainly he appreciated economic gain by medicare giving these claims so i think there's ample evidence in the record and the district court certainly knew you know what the standard was for restitution that's were cited in the sentencing transcript from the district court so there's ample evidence to suggest and to prove as the district court found that those amounts that three hundred eleven thousand where this was a direct in the proximate cause of that offends of his identity theft with the intent to use him a lawful and the p s are classified as the sixteen stolen identities we focus on the sixteen because there's the direct link to the evidence from those that information from parkland then build out as dallas and verify although why was he charged why was there the specification on or about september twenty third two thousand and eleven and that was the date the warrant was conducted and although we had a tip earlier in two thousand and eleven and  been gathering information and you know had this idea that this was going on the war it was actually executed on that date and so there was concrete proof in the form of those patient lists on september twenty third when the warrant was executed words were the sixteen individuals that you just referenced those qualified for medicare in any way is is the issue that they wound up with  but that they qualified they were otherwise qualified or that they were not qualified at all how does a number break down amongst those that are not qualified at all so that's that's an excellent question your honor and  the you know there's a two prong test that we look at to determine and this gets to their burden to prove the opposite say we're entitled to first whether those were legitimate services that were being charged for and second whether the government would have stating that they have a process of flagging entities that submit claims where they know there's identity theft and that if they would have known there was identity theft they would have never paid those claims they would have shut that provider off entirely and that's not rebutted by mr matthew there's also evidence in the record in the form of interviews of these patients and the agent goes out there and sees for instance and someone is knowing their yard therefore they're not home bound and they could have driven to get health care not meeting the you know the basic prerequisites under medicare and matthew attempted to put forth evidence in the form of nurse testimony about the conditions of these individuals to establish that they were home bound and therefore were entitled to services however the medicare regulations require that a doctor certify that so the district court correctly found that was not competent evidence and  not bear his burden of proving that these were legitimate medicare services point that i asked her about was whether the government wants to argue that there was some kind of meeting of the minds with the defendant here that would expand the possible temporal scope of restitution is that an organ the government's making so turning back to what again this ample record evidence shows you know the government has and that the tests of proving that the restitution was limited to the losses directly and proximately caused by the offense of conviction we can look to in ray fischer six forty f third at six forty eight from this court in two thousand and eleven to provide guidance as to what exactly direct and proximate means and direct means the but for cause of the harm the record shows that  approximately thirteen hundred parklane identity stolen by matthew sixteen became patients of dallas home health and were ultimately buildout and medicare paid dallas home health over three hundred eleven thousand dollars for claims for those sixteen patients that's in the record twenty seven ninety four and this court has held that the p s r is generally considered reliable for sentencing purposes so long as it is not based on bare assertions that's most recently espouse from this court in united sanaa in two thousand and eighteen us that lexus thirty three four hundred issued by the court on november twenty eighth citing us we heard and that certainly you know there's much more evidence in the record here from a four day sentencing these sixteen would have become patients of dollars home health and medicare would have never paid for home health care services for these individuals there's ample testimony as to how they were solicited there were gift cards given to some of these individuals signed extremists things outside of you know even simple nursing tasks that were provided that certainly didn't rise to the level of skilled nursing and second the case law tells us that proximate means reasonably for economic benefit and he admitted they did instructed his employers to solicit prospective patients on his behalf certainly the reasonably first seeable consequence of possessing so and identities with the intent to gain economic benefit would be making money because mr matthew did here so you know both prongs of the direct and proximate cause have been met here and the district courts award a restitution was certainly reasonable in light of these significant record evidence supporting the p r's estimate of loss and turning to the government's final issue as i mentioned earlier the district court correctly rejected matthys requests for offsets matching for the burden of proving any offsets against loss in case law is clear here we can look to the united states first mooted eight twenty third at one ninety four in two thousand and sixteen a defendant arguing for credit against lost must prove two things the services provided religion amend and medicare would have paid for those services but for his fraud and again and united states verse you can is as a comma here recently the court reiterated that standard and the district court after hearing four days of testimony correctly found that matthew did not meet that burden and failed to fail to show that dallas some holes provided legitimate medicare reimbursement services i mentioned earlier there's testimony in the record from medicare as to the fact that medicare will flag claims or they know an entity has stolen identities that can be found at record six twenty three to six twenty five services were actually provided to medicare beneficiaries there was no real debate there that the patients came to the hospital qualified for medicare received medical care the fried their occurred later when the diagnosis codes were altered to increase the amount of medicare funds that was an up coding case and the court in the middle of found that because of fraud occurred after the fact the mood was able to show that medicare would have paid something in other words it was a base level that medicare should rightfully compensated that hospital floor and a mood just added extra to the top that could be taken as the restitution award matthew did not show the same here there's no evidence any of the sixteen would have chosen home health care services without matthew solicitation there is no rebuttal to medicare's witness's testimony that medicare would not have flagged them as compromise identity and finally there's the district court found there was no concrete evidence a market value of services matthew was unable to prove you know let's say that he provided one hundred thousand dollars of services that medicare should have compensated receive benefit for and that should be deducted that simply didn't happen here and in conclusion the district court's restitution award was directly in proximately tied to the offense of conviction which is the theft of those identities the government affirms the court to affirm the district court's judgment including the restitution award and if the court has no further questions i'm  the loss of now the government bore the burden of proving loss in the first instance i think that the standard urges the court to adopt poor law so now shifts the burden improperly by stating that a defendant ha to show that patients are qualified for home health care services in this case many of the patients in this matter by the time of the by the time of the case was brought by the time the factual resume was filed and certainly by the time of the sentencing hearings were deceased and so it would be next to impossible for a defendant to prove that particular patients were entitled to a home health care or were homebound or otherwise in the mind run health care conspiracy case in the future