integrity of the cords the integrity of evidence and the evidence that was used in the sentencing of mister garcia the problems with the integrity of the evidence just don't go away and the government doesn't deal with it at all and in fact big kind of double down on it within their grief where they say they're defending the science inaccuracy is there factually unsound and legally irrelevant that's just not true respectfully you know that the things that are pointed out sound are accurate they were the ones who were inaccurate at the hearing and then had to file something post sentencing to say that they were inaccurate and that those checks consulted checks are credible because they don't know not just the integrity of the evidence but they go into the conspiracy itself meaning the whole idea of the conspiracy is my client legitimate accurately dated check but i'm sure and it sounds supplemental appendix one forty three i think is over thirty checks from conspiracy charge so it means it doesn't fit within the conspiracy it means they did something different with these chance runtastic ask why did they have stopped altering these checks if they came as a is from is the name years and what this means is that in the same here they are filing tax returns using the same social security number different individuals and this was counted against my client no one can simply say oh well then they those checks you still overwhelmingly over that's not the point effect to cross examine to get in relevant evidence and number two i don't see how you can stand there and i like you about an absence of evidence or contradictory evidence when in fact  on this point no way i did contest the p s r and i said that there were duplicative checks and i wrote extensively on the fact that social security numbers were used more than once alaska there is no way that that's consistent with the government's theory that mr fleming or cea control the addresses cory picked up the chairs that's why indeed they created pointed out that anything like that wasn't in massachusetts should be unlimited yes i did point that out today do a specific calculation because i was it's hard to capture that i was on the wrong data i was trying to do a lot of evidence at once and on those cherrix or on respectfully you're saying i don't know why you would alter a check to make it look fraudulent those checks if you look at them don't your own argument at least two million of the lawsuits could could could indeed be attributed to the theory on exactly exactly consistently with the representations that the government made about how it works evidence is called into question i had a show and that there are massive problems with the integrity of the evidence and i am saying that i am hoping that the cooler i think i have yet to be heard and maybe it's my own lack of coherence but i have tried to point out of it what on putting before you today is that these social security numbers are being used in the way that the government charged in the indictment because when when you say as you as you say over and over again will some of these social security numbers were used five times well all i'm saying is once one sure client sets this scheme in motion if some scheme meaning it calls into question the entire scheme and what i'm trying to say here is that the judge found santiago reliable and that we didn't have to  out thank you thank you united states but the courts commission i would like to just briefly clarify for the record how it is that the district court made the determination of the loss in this case because it derives from t sources which i believe my colleague conflates of that all point seven million seven point seven million that lost is attributable to checks that were in fact negotiated through the defendant's using the stolen personal identifying information that the defendant provided to santiago taking and there's ample evidence that supports the district court's last mining with respect to both of those defendant but i would like to point out that this was intended loss so that found that there are several claims made on behalf of the same taxpayer for the same tax year is not for for a single refund and no would be there there is that there is a record here of multiple requests but the the multiple requests refer only to one body of money so it seems strange to me to say that if you ask three times for the same five dollar bill that you in multiple tasks is that outside of this state and genuine error i'd like to grind up a couple of things one that evidence showed that the defendant had access to numerous locations beyond they listed addresses throughout the country and them significantly even if we were out of the five million to limit that last checks only in massachusetts and louisiana which the evidence showed in the defendant conce that the defendant had access to that would not change the defendant's guidelines calculation because there would still the loss would still exceed one point five million by at least one hundred thousand or so with respect to the remaining seven point seven million dollars and permission i would like to talk about the number of than ten victims section to be one point six which prohibits and enhancement for the charge transfer possession or use other means of identification but one individual who is also sentenced under aggravated identity does not i'm in this case as defined by the guidelines because their means of identification worries list but that alone that finding was sufficient while a necessary finding another to apply the enhancement is year mandatory minimum under time twenty a day under aggravated identity theft with punishing that individual for the same conduct by enhancing an underlying offense a conviction but a single instance of additional finding that needs to be made in order to trigger in announcement the number of victims is one of the squad has already found meaningful for example this court has had the occasion to consider that to be a one point six provision in the united be one point one b ten which is now and be a lot of them that provides for to love an increase for the trafficking or the production of a means of identification and in that case this court had construed to be one  by over three million dollars so that even if there is or even if there is some play in the joints some calculation error or unreliable evidence and  with respect to the seven point seven million dollar loss undercuts the fact that at the end of the day these checks were in fact negotiated out the defendant's direction testimony of the coconspirators that the district court explicitly credited thank you l hour hearing those are the district court's word it's not mine our record to forty two in that same order that denying the hearing that the district court did know it in a footnote that should it become an issue chairing the sentencing hearing that anything that he would necessarily want to hear additional information on he would certainly entertain it and at sentencing after the defendant presented as evidence that just and again asked for a hearing that the district court submitted nothing submitted seem to create a general issue of material fact or an issue of disputed fact that in any way require that hearing you right now is in things that you have never let is before because all the defendants arguments that he's advancing not he ultimately needed to take additional testimony to decide the questions before it and ultimately after hearing the defendant's arguments and the government's response the district court rightfully concluded that it didn't need additional tests on and at the end of the day it was clear that tall points had million dollars in claims were made that came from i asked summary just an ounce and attributing all of that to the defendant the district court explicitly credited the testimony of the co have already testified at trial and were already subject to cross examination on certain couldn't that there was nothing in the record before it that they needed to take additional testimony on or that would move the needle one way or the other and it didn't use its discretion in denying the defendant that hearing the defendant also attempted to but john his guilty plea as the court pointed out it was not an error for the district court to deny the