thank you i'd like to reserve minutes again and right after that i will i'm heather williams and i may or may not be ineffective counsel i bring that up only because the government in its face seems to be arguing that waldron's case was being decided both in the trial court and on appeal the law hell that there was no such precedent applicable to waldron's case and that a reasonable attorney is not required to raise every non frivolous issue that might appeal either i first became aware that project was around three days after the decision was made and mr waldron's direct appeal i would point out however that the sixty nine thousand dollar case is not comparing the twenty thousand dollar available find that the twenty six thousand dollars for future how does that rise to the theory of the archly level of fundamental or everything is because the judge may have different decided not to impose any additional fine he may have decided to impose a minimal part of that meaning that waldron should get back the bulk of his money and certainly if he opposed even the maximum of twenty thousand dollars well and should be getting back six thousand and ninety two dollars this this is  towards people who are true criminals where the proceeds might be illegal money launderers drug people drug runners and so on like that and that's wasn't the case and wildman scenario and walter snarled these were was lawful money that he had received as part of starts out us vs some kind of currency there was a fourth which are under title thirty one five fifty three seventy one and title eighteen nine eighty two the jury has to decide that the money was the me exactly it's that the money ok then we get it and that's when the other questions come into play but that wasn't the forfeiture and waldron scenario that was never alleged in fact the government went out of its way in the second superseding inviting meant to a eventually decided and about accordions case on the excessive spines analysis but fifty three seventy one is not the statute that the money was forfeited under in this particular scenario i ahead reserve the rest of my time thank you crossing the border attempting to cross the border looks like he was required to wear the american excess well the amount that you're supposed to declare is in fact the amount that is next and that's what the jury decided he should forfeit leaving him or the ten thousand if you will the government maintains that out of the three requirements for koren know those which have been traditionally recognized by this court the defendant has failed to show three of them and therefore the district court certainly was representing the defense i think on the issue other than the lawyer with the accused that's correct how do you justify that well as i indicated in a brief i think actually the district court in this case as well as the defense has gone off on a wrong tack because in fact there was a case of a level of a sixty nine thousand dollars forfeiture case which would provide a basis for presenting the claim therefore to the extent the judge roll thought that there was no precedent and suggested or at least implied that the jury's forfeit your determination was inappropriate that's correct and it was not cited to the district court that's right and in a timely fashion the lawyer who did not present that case in the first instance when it could have been presented asked to withdraw so that another lawyer could come in and a her ineffective assistance correct that's right so and you say that's ok well i drew the analogy in the in the brief to the case which the supreme court decided which basically said there is no ineffective assistance if a council fails to present an argument which ultimately is found not to be legally valid which is exactly what happened here the fact that he didn't have the opportunity to have the court make an error his fact is not a cognizable interest crime the court was well well there was reason to say that the ninth circuit this court held that way but ultimately supreme court said no you're misunderstanding that's not the correct approach that's not correct analysis well it was which is your third well my third one is the fact that so far as i've been able to find no court including this one has ever held that a naked claim to return of money where the conviction of self has not been challenged failed to allege an interest within a zone protected by corum novus and that's consistent with this court's and the supreme court's jurisprudence which is that it is the conviction which is the critical element and here in other words the seventh circuit called it basically a sunk cost it's more in the nature of a typical civil lawsuits rather than the continuing disability which morgan and mayor said is necessary to have even though that doesn't help me need to let the district court go ahead and do some balancing first in that kind of situation we feel that the court doesn't need to get that far though because as much as the government is saying budget cuts you know only decides proportionality it does not it absolutely affirms this court's decision and footnote nine of its opinion that the currency is not the instrumentality the offense it is the subject of the crime and should not be forfeited in the first  this court doesn't he need to get to the proportionality argument the government has conceded that there is no other remedy at this time no the relief of a little there is a good reason for not having brought it before the district court found that there was a good reason that this had not been raised before because the first time the sixty nine thousand dollars case was raised was on appeal and it was in the government's a prefix so in the past i will be thirteen years next month nobody has raised the sixty nine thousand dollar case before that is correct but to say that it did not uphold that is correct but and addressing what the government is arguing that proportionality is the only question the first question under eighteen's section nine hundred eighty two that has to be answered is whether or not it is the instrumentality so as a matter of l