stipulation on a plea agreement in that regard what spelled out the facts of the complaint it took about two to three pages going through the complete history of mr young's appeals and that's your argument that you're going to only the back injury is in dispute right correct and part of the compromise here was that the p t s d benefits were taken out of the equation by the government that is correct so it sounds like you want the good parts of the deal to stick the government with that it has to comply with the terms of its leader right that is correct and you want to reopen the part the bent of the of the because you think you can benefit you while many other part i think there was a lot of negotiation that went on i think the problem that happened with the p t s d is i think the government would have a difficult time proving that and proving how that would have been that's why parties compromise and stipulate what they do and what nobody actually ever did nobody actually ever looked at the fraud about mr young never got credit that he actually chatting with before the court in two thousand and three the veterans administration before there was any fraud or anything else and then the fraud doesn't he gets the money until august twenty third team when the doctor obviously suspects something is wrong and watches him in the parking lot and the whole thing starts to unravel but i don't see why that in any way  did and this just isn't exactly this judge hamilton said sometimes we'll find things not knowing intelligent because we say you know what person would agree to this except the answer is plain he agrees to it because it gets rid of reason this team came to an end was the doctor saw mr yang walking around putting his wheelchair in the back and the investigation began why would it not be reasonable if we at this for the government to argue that in essence mr young was intending to obtain friday on benefits for the rest of his life well i think the government could argue that but the that problem that the government would have been at is that we have mr young and initially making an application in two thousand and two he gets twenty three get twenty percent before that he goes up to sixty percent will thrive with no use  shares with no use of the keen in two thousand and three in november two thousand and three that goes on and tells his benefits increase in two thousand and seven i understand that point i don't see how that's responsive to the possibility that  gets opened up for full litigation which is what you seem to want that it would be quite reasonable to argue that the the intended loss would include could easily go back well above the four hundred thousand right but we would rely upon the reports in the doctors reports and the x rays and the m r i has undergone two thousand to two thousand and three and the medical opinions of the doctors that evaluated him in two thousand to two thousand and three that gave him the sixty percent it's not until after that when he tried to get it dition will benefit as i think i so i don't know how the exposure would be increased because it's not until after he gets t percent that he tries to get more and tries to get housing benefits and everything else and that's how this frog you know comes in like to the government when he's filing in two thousand and thirteen for not more in regards to the permanency is already at one hundred percent because of the p t s d and up to sixty percent on the facts but what he's looking at trying to do is he's looking at trying to get housing benefits an increase there and that's when the doctor sees him in the parking lot and that's when they do their investigation which leads the government include record and they make some retroactive determinations right without ever looking at what he should get credit for in regard to sounds like you want to have a trial you want you want to do no we're going to do the police were no dollars and forty one cents to calculate the guidelines as restitution and as the ultimate figure involved in settling the case without the risks to both sides from the trial period close  that the judge notices the hesitation right and correct then if really just sounds like buyer's remorse or you're trying to undo the parts that you don't like and hang on to the parts you do like which judge hamilton was talking about a minute ago neither which you know which works right what we're what that's not it we're trying to get credit i think the argument could be made on the other side that there was actually no loss attributable to the strike yes there was a fraud but there could be an argument that there was no loss because he never got the increase in benefits he already had he never got the increase in benefits in two thousand and thirteen that he was that he was going for he actually had had the disability benefits and two thousand and three counsel so it to argue to the courts that no one looked at the fraud amount is clearly wrong we looked at that amount very closely attorney philip in his documents sentencing memo to the court two the defendant was given a twenty percent disability rating but it was made effective july thirtieth of two thousand and one so when the v a starts looking at all of these numbers and the amount of the fraud it was  xti percent and then one hundred percent but when they calculated what truly the defendant was going they they calculated twenty percent from july thirtieth of two thousand and one as the effective date for what the defend should have been receiving which is the twenty percent so that's how we got to that number and to say that this is a number that was the biggest of the finance just flat out wrong in this case that number was referenced in the pl agreement if you look at the government appendix it was specifically agreed to by the defendant i agree that the amount of the loss in a factual basis here is twenty one thousand dollars in the five hundred thousand then at the time of the plead the defendant through his attorney acknowledge that sentence in the same statements are made so that is correct and that's the government bargain that was reached the corner thousand figure from the p t s d gets reduced to the two hundred one thousand dollars and we top of another that died and mr young observed this and this cost our trauma to him there are a couple of other p t s d claims one involving him being on a shooting range when  short the government believes that should receive the benefit of the bargain here of the defendant getting nearly two hundred thousand dollars lopped off unfairly so but fairly sort of the government we should be entitled to what we negotiated a stipulation and that frankly is this waiver in the government's view so absent any other questions and i certainly just know a comment if we got to the plane error issue your brief argued that the claimed error would not have affected young substantial rights or the fairness integrity just two things in common first of all in regards i guess i may have i may have misspoken regards and then when the v a made its decision in two thousand and sixteen in a hearing in that regard it did go back all the way to two thousand and one my client at that time there was no fraud from two thousand one tell the time that he got the sixty percent your honor also brought up to the million a martinez case i think if the court looks at decades to where there was there was a dispute or a problem in regards to th instead of five counts in regards to cameras in the criminal history category three she committed five breweries on one day or five aggravated battery said one day and i would suggest that that sort of similar to what happened here in this regards nobody caught that there wasn't a calculation the only body that ever