then what she did was she would go to people who were either beginning their foreclosure process or were unable to pay the mortgage she would then go to the lenders negotiate a short sale price at the same time looking for buyers to sell the property for a profit and she bought she bought the property  correct she sold it for more than a short sale price she kept the profit and the issue is whether or not the lenders are entitled she took commissions she took taxes she took she in one instance there was a second mortgage that she added on of two hundred fifty thousand dollars and she took that she took money left and right in some instances she took the real interest commissions so the issue here is whether or not the lenders are owed she lied to the lenders as to  misrepresented stark stated there's there's no question about that your honor all i'm saying is that they let the lenders themselves conducted appraisals of the properties so they knew what the market values were in two instances the lenders rejected stone's offer of the short sale price and negotiated a higher price but it wasn't just the  but at least in one instance that's crack yarn and in three instances the homeowners had lost their jobs and they were making their mortgage forty nine forty six you'll find that she did object then the entry of the restitution you say it should be eight hundred thousand rather dewpoint three big correct if it had to get it to give you the benefit of that negotiation and willingness to do the short sale took it from what she was they were owed by the homeowners to what whatever profits  and implicit in that was really the restitution are you make a better record on that recuse are because i didn't have anything to work with at the time we subsequently got through for you information related to the court's finances but during the time of the trial or in time the case down below we had no information other than the fact that the court acknowledged it owned some properties are we might have a better argument but he owns stock in mutual funds it in a number of different entities so these three institutions were one of probably twenty or thirty alyssa hurt me and for the united states appears the court is familiar with the record in this case i just want to highlight a few facts that i think are significant and the first is that the record makes clear that the transactions that the defendant negotiated were permeated with fraud at every stage not only was she misrepresenting the market value of these property or the sales price of these properties to the banks she was exaggerating the homeowners financial distress she was concealing her role as purchaser and a realtor and the record make correct and i guess i would also point out that that case law regarding restitution in mortgage fraud cases makes clear that you start with outstanding balances and you subtract the value that the money recovered from the sale of the collateral or the show itself i think the supreme court's opinion in robers makes that clear even though the value of the collateral may vary the starting point is that outstanding balance on the law and that's what the district court did don't think anybody knew anything about courts financial holdings and i responsive briefly pointed out there were a couple of different ways in which that defendant could bring that that the form that she got through this way requests to the district court's attention that for well we said they need to go back to the district court and raise it before the district court first which is what happens here the appeal was held in abeyance while the district court decided the new trial motion that was filed in the district court and we suggested in our responsive brief that that was the appropriate course of action again this document wasn't in the record the district court didn't have a full opportunity to explain himself in any event i think that the second circuit decision to allow or send when you look to sellers case right