simple just early c g a provisions could you spend up to eight hundred dollars to get your psychologist to present at least some right so then what do you make of the reason the judge denied so he didn't want you want to basically gave more he i don't know there was a series of argument on that issue go ahead and i know your time right now to go ahead let you go you could kind of wrap up your st point about the language expert and if you could go to the brady argument i would really appreciate why you can trust for a shell and the reason why it is that you can trust all these cooperators is because you have a few witnesses armstrongs there now i saw that's why you can trust them then obviously the thing the whole thing happened w you can trust byrd shall because of saat looking through the courts is rushing i see that the court says you should not consider any arguments made d by the government starting so i see that there but was there anything else that the jury about just made he and i tried this case and we had to make a lot of tactical decisions in a hurry but one thing that was we had in common throughout was attacking the sloppiness of the government's case and in my closing argument i made four or five different points pointing out where the sloppiness had been so it would have been enormously helpful to have been able to review all of that material and would have supported what was basically a very important  in our defense other than that mr wilkie put it well and was the one that dealt with most of the instructions and that sort of things i'm going to move briefly to the role in the offense of my client i had asked  trial court for a two level adjustment downward for my client arguing that his role was not essential and another of a number of other arguments that are in my brief but i just want to highlight a case that i cited a footnote four page nine of my brief us versus gomez vi wherein the th circuit found that simply being paid to perform tasks should not be should be considered for a r it just meant downward and that really was the heart of what i was arguing one of the problems is that like the last case that we discussed the findings here as to the reasoning for the district court denial of my request are thin or non existent in fact there's actually a point during the judge's comments when i was concerned that he had confused my client was somebody else a mule rule may apply here but i think it's much more serious when you're a straw buyer and he was talking about my client at that point and my client was not a straw buyer he was an employee at excel and as i argued   the strategy below that i'm referring to is that this issue about whether my client confessed to this witness became the focal point of the government who can argue was their primary point in the should apply here war is specifically found that the prosecutors argument was improper on that they acted like the defendant hatching status when the defendant not consent and that's the exact same problem that we have here the prosecution wanted the witness to say that no he wasn't surprised he was confessing to no involvement in the fraud at the end of the day the witness said look i can't i can't say i was so wrapped up in my own  agree that if the prosecutor had made the inferential argument if the prosecutor said you can infer from the fact that he knew some of these facts that he must have been involved in the broth but that's not what the prosecutor the prosecutor said did want to move forward to the sentencing in particular i want to start off with the last issue we have a dispute about the standard of review we are contending that the issue was adequately preserve a little the government is arguing out more or so we believe that under this court's case law the issue is preserved not only our standard and once you get past that i believe the government has essentially conceded that their calculation was was just over twenty million dollars there's a judge more and i'm sure that instruction is as adamant as you say it is or that it really resolves the great problem which i think is a matter because the court is struck that she may that saw it put a gold star on virtual so i can you deal with because i will tell you that's what bothers me the most about about what happened here was that saddam is used as a bridge witness to say what you may not like is for a challenge other people because they prosecution but it wasn't true so how can we say that saddam was just always a witness when in closing we can go through all the times it was said about how in particular you heard from holly back and none of that had to do with me as they are also didn't have to do with the eight hundred and ninety two thousand dollars that this and along with his brother took from the fraud that the bank records show happened one million of rich a one million ultimately received a fair trial because the information although it came out really the jury was alerted to it and that ultimately the fent this witness wasn't seriously out in the district judge did was use hearing on the other issues question i asked mr wilkie well as there was an impression major d the opening close that the reason why you can trust or tell these other witnesses because you had clean witnesses and this was listed as one of the like mr kim was sort of the principal big cop of the peer defendant in the government agreed the laws with him were six point two mile why don't you cabin by that as a relation to all the other people fifteen page eight prosecution told the court testimony went right to the heart of what was happening at excel during the relevant events set forth in the indictment i could have put that better myself your honor and thank you