hundred twenty five thousand dollars and the total loss figure at the adventure of hearing my introducing additional evidence as to minus a position that the government's concession approximately ten percent of the all total loss that was in be persuasive and so it's our position in this case that in terms of laws with respect to the victim itself that it's kind of viewed as a continuum so small as a whole and you have to take into consideration that this concession that the government made that a portion of that was incorrect would be almost the same as if she would have that evidence on at the hearing if the government had not concede at the beginning of the hearing they would have put that evidence on the and the district would have concluded that one hundred twenty five thousand dollars was was wrong then  i think would be clear that she would have shown that there was some of the services or render i think it is the distinction because the government concession was made at that somehow suggests that she didn't show that there were some legitimate once the defendant was able to show by the government's concession that a significant proportion of what the government was written was wrong then she sat by her board of production such that the bird and then shipped to the government for it to  a case that when the court is really talking about proving the offsets that what is referred to there is the defendant coming forward with enough evidence for it to be able to satisfy its burden of production and that contacts not necessarily  human services were provided that that's the law in our survey yes sure so here if i understand your argument correctly it sounds like you're asking us to generalize from the fact that th with the some number already accounting for the deduction of those two errors generalizing the percentage of loss would satisfy your burden i'm not sure why production because it in the cultures that are saying the burden of production it's not something we look at the other cases and i'll be if they are in the guide my context but this court frequently when we talk about laws actual law some things like that it is typically fraud in the case was so pervasive it did not need to resolve that issue it up but this court also noted that there was some small amount of services that were probably legitimate but it didn't need to resolve that either evidence outside of those six persons and some possible for the district court to extrapolate that there is additional fraud and not this dumb question then why stipulate that there was more than a million dollars for fraud with respect to once i realize it's not the mandatory it was restitution but why did a somewhat analogous situation stipulate to the amount of loss and i think that's a problem  fifty thousand dollars that that's not at issue that's it no more so we have one audit where we have about five hundred fifty thousand and we have the other audit where there's a six consumers with a focus on and then a government witness who testified that there is no additional fraud in that specific got it so where does it come from that's the issue with respect to the district court's finding about an estimation for the federal experts say that one shouldn't look beyond the records of the six patients but i think i've been given that there was a thank you very much this was really never had it sort of finding that there were legitimate services a simply said there may be some small amount of limited services so that a potential not proven existence second order legace whose testimony mr sample just referred to never said there is no evidence of fraud in the hunt other hundred forty four clients out of one hundred fifty that were looked at in the expanded investigation she simply said we didn't have case and the fact that you have you really have a bunch of documents as the district court found that you couldn't rely upon to determine exactly what potential offsets there were or not i don't counsel that evidence was lacking as to the six i don't believe there's any reason to believe that the there the evidence would be any better as to the other hundred forty four and to judge premises questions regarding the d f o audit yes it's true we do not we cannot  many many dozens more individuals and so given that and the pervasiveness of the fraud with me the six kind included in the expanded investigation it seems eminently reasonable for the court to say ok well even if there the actual investigation was conducted primarily by state investigators because i am afraid i don't know the answer your question is why two separate ones were done and usa was involved this is not a judge individuals may have been over there who may have or helping the clients who may have may have provided some services but you know there's there was no evidence in the record  she wanted to prove bad fact and do you agree that the burden is on the ultimately at persuasion remains on the government to show actual loss when i think under brian there is because it talks about proof at the criminal fraud enterprise as a and you look at the fact that it was incredibly pervasive not just with the six individuals that were focused on in the n i c u and expand period and then the n s a you expanded investigation covers a period that begins a day later one day later and yet focuses on six and doesn't look at the other hundred forty four it's reasonable to say that  fraud with regard to those other hundred forty four didn't just automatically stop at that point and again i think it would be very problematic if the district court were to say ok look we think there was one hundred percent of fraud on these six individuals from expanded because out of the polling the state as well as the combination of their fraudulent documentation and their claims for which there is no supporting documentation and either way that's problematic if there was legitimate documentation credible that is of course then why when you have a situation like this you do have the shifting burdens and the opportunity is there for most of mine in this case or other defendants to then come forward with that documentation haven't had the court look at it any kind of burden shifting framework that we talk about here and you know look at the evidence that was produced in the testimony of the one witness and they call that the last hearing and said you know everything you relied upon standards that are supposed to be met for documentation the government can meet its burden by showing that either the documents that are produced across you want or that none of that documentation was provided that's enough and then and then it becomes  if they want to prove off that succumbs the defendant's burden just to prove to credible evidence that yes we did provide services that that would be our position it's not that the government yes to just throw up its hands but the government can i believe that