basic factual issues as to when income was created whose income it was what that you want to mouth capital gains st ordinary income will either dispute or disputed right after the change of plea hearing and well before the sense government changed their theory a number of times they started with the special agents report which was provided were true to loss of a quarter one million dollars and the the charging document changed the amount of shares sold from thirteen  also is will be an obstruction statute and the supreme court said that drug struct a person or thing the court held that was limited to targeted acts of the ministration and used the term that the had to be an official duty involved we looked up before the argument obviously several several dictionaries and the oxford english dictionary among other things uses the term function because the only difference in the two stack and is m unconstitutional overbred it must be construed the same way we also contest for the restitution order we believe it's clear that restitution must be based on actual laws not on intended apply because based on the change of plea hearing it is clear that mr flynn did not agree that he managed anybody and he did not control anyone and therefore the floor level i just meant should not have applied they create debt for the shit sales of stalk shares it would be capital gains treatment when we get the sensing it's not capital gains treatment the underlying premise again were to reverse motors we view this is really a clear to partner counsel that it was unclear what was income wasn't clear how income was created the government had three different theories here during number one was income was created when shares were issued the number two was income was created one shares were small in theory number three was income was created one when it came back into the united states and the inconsistent theories so by the time of the district court excepted used the stipulated figures did it subject of separate proceedings today the government is seeking to a separate litigation to determine that the house is his and can be used for purposes of restitution and we ask the court to reverse the restitution order which would make that proceeding at least for the moment and this change in theory in this change procedure we think at the inception made the proceedings so flawed that whatever happened in june should not have been permitted to continue after december ok let me let me lines created by congress and not crimes created by the court and the st supreme court case which gets to the issue here decided that the crime was so bored that they had to have  involving a involving and the function of the agency and not and you have to get to something not in the vacuum but something after the agency has begun some proceeding and the only administration and you're down and comparing that were to function and in an arc you when you use a simple dictionary definition of each which is what the supreme court did america hello and we don't you know which part of our prayer pleading at the by the time of the plea and should have permitted the plea to be withdrawn at the change of pickering the court the the district court permitted the government to introduce numbers which were outside the guideline rate they introduced t the courtroom of outline the elements of the fence whatever klein conspiracy whose income it is and how much why is mr flynn responsible for the income especially st father's companies which were freestanding c corporations  the like were putting on his tax returns what does dominion and control only it's a technical tax term and again when you look at the transcript the government agreed that mr flynn didn't have dominion control over the full fifteen million dollars at least six main one dollar three cents main door  twelve years after the underlying offense and none of that was done in our view if you look at the conduct all the government proposes that they don't have to deal with a last full clone conspiracy record that the restitution has to be for the restoration or has to be reversed and then you go to organize a leader if the fifteen million was used restitution was calculated to the penny five million three hundred and ninety two thousand four hundred and forty two dollars and eighty seven cents it's true that the government provided the court with other alternative ways to calculate clearly so in abiding by the stipulation of the parties and the lomas case cited by defendant in his reply brief is not to the contrary in fact the court in that is says there was no adequate factual basis but moreover we don't even have to reach it because the defendant stipulated to to the enhancement in this basement just meant if the court wanted to review the record with respect to folks who were led by mr land the court review paragraphs fifteen dollars sixteen  really begging the question as to whether he was whether the defendant understood the nature of the plea i'd like to start with the record the record in this case convinces the court the defendant understood the nature of the plea that is that the district court  thousand and fifteen that he committed it in the state of this district in minnesota and elsewhere that he agreed to defraud the united states that he entered that agreement with mr miyagi and with his father philip flynn that the reason on the factual basis by the government offering opportunities for the senses well it offered ample opportunity to senate ask any questions and indeed if you if he was confused at any time you're out of the surrounding circumstances regarding also should convince this court that he understood the nature of the charge that is the court did enquires does and that was standing with their men of the th the defendant engaged not only in these and here the court complied with footnotes in harvey the court read verbatim the indictment but it went further than that as well and the record in context goes further than just a verbatim read it verbatim reading of the indictment and it noted harvey  ultimately found that the police were knowing based on the fact that the defendant represented that the court that he had read defended read the indictment and understood the charges that's all the court required harvey was that the defendant say you understood the charges and bond over them with his that the court need not make verbatim reading of the indictment nor read the elements now in this case the court read the indictment that includes the elements but but certainly this court doesn't require either or to call that also means you require a nexus this court would be telling the supreme court what it meant when it said force the elements of three hundred and seventy one dollars the supreme court has told us what it meant the copeland is out of the nd circuit was right we've got a one hundred identifiable persons or property and the court construe as the text to a language of the due administration of this title as well as the legislative history to confirm that when we've kind of figure out we do it ministration this title means in context it means you're directing it at the specific administrative proceeding because that's what the rest of the statute is devoted to and that's what the legislative history demonstrates three hundred and seventy one doesn't have any of those limitations and house and  yet i think your microphone got cut thought thank you i think i'd like to ask you a question just as right out of the box though your marriage no argument is the context of that that it is in support of your motion to withdraw or the the withdrawal of the please your argument or is that an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss what what exactly is the context of that art text was and in connection with the motion to we're told a guilty because our position was and is that he could not plead guilty to something to which is not a crime and we believe it's from our papers we raised it sufficiently it's not going to review that that anything is clear that's clear in this case october after the change of play and it's supposed to be a little standard the court has to reach that issue and it's again a different day in our view and based ramallah now there's no way to withhold the whole hold up anymore at three hundred and seventy one c