sentence which is the equivalent of a total of years ten months and we believe that it should be as little as forty six months under the sense he guidelines remember only the grounds for appeal or th or did not substantiate the reasons for an obstruction of justice enhanced that the denial of the acceptance or responsibility rouges of the guidelines and because  estates if and when asked whether he could liquidate assets in this matter he noted that he was white was the owner and that he did not have the  error but in a setting in which she said many chances to look at this case you really got to clarify the error because she's going to have some discussion and having had a  he said its credibility was completely absent in his ownership and control or shecky of the state's estates a new vision he failed to disclose that well that doesn't amount to a finding i'm sure  determine whether or not he will fully know that evidence is u s troops struck just what's your take on the government's harmless error argument the district court said no matter the calculation the guidelines she would have come to the same place well i think that she she can't get to the place without st finding a materiality because then clearly what she's doing is departing or burying upward because of her frustration with this mystery where you can you can use the word frustration someone might also use the word insight but the key point is there's an awful lot of discretion with district court judges to up or down and they're actually allowed to disagree with the guidelines which is pretty serious confirmation of the discretion trial judge has issued or the provides for disagreement with the guidelines is based in order to tie that into how that would in fact but we know that it was in the context of a discussion about his assets for the purpose of getting restitution but i will note for the court there was no we we health care for our or was she asked about any other entities in which she might have been involved we don't know absent some evidence to demonstrate we simply don't know it's not in the record and it should have been in the record before the r i wanted to ask you you're correct there's definitely a law that to impose an obstruction of justice i'm handsome and you have to identify what the obstruction was are there are cases that say having identified the obstruction the judge also must make a finding on the record of willfulness of materiality the st part of your peer lea correct the drawn a blank i have a point i'm sorry you're right we can do further research go ahead i'm sorry molina murkiness there are there must be a detailed explanation and he let it lack of necessary findings provided that the government would notch oh so in acceptance of responsibility and in fact would move for the additional rd level for acceptance of responsibility  the clear agreement also provided that they may litigate an application of three she one dollar obstruction or impeding the administration of justice at sentencing which will not impact the government's position regarding acceptance responsibility so in essence the court was faced with recommendations in the plea agreement non binding recommendations of recommendations nonetheless and  on the health care well are you complaining that the government didn't that's the word or that the court heard in finding that obstruction negated the exceptions i would an exhibit j to the government's sentencing materials his wife was listed as the owner of that company on in the next few days on track consistent with his entire fraud schemes of what he businesses and other people's names but i want to make clear that that was his business new here that involved witness testimony over a dozen exhibits and extended arguments on each of the contested matters the court specifically considered and ruled on each of the defendant's objections calculated the guidelines range and thoroughly analyze to disclose his business interests those were sufficient factual findings on twelve now with respect to materiality i think it's important we clarify what the standard of materiality is in this context under three c one application notes six talks about information that would tend to influence an issue under determination so here would be non disclosure tend to d influence a sentencing determination regardless of whether it actually did enjoy it i agree with you i think the regardless of whether they had any actual impact on this fine or restitution assets and bank accounts are certainly the kind of information that just records would want to know about the kind of information that would tend to influence those determinations and appropriate punishment in the case and perhaps the appropriate conditions of supervised release so the district court did make the appropriate factual findings on two alternative bases for the obstruction enhanced meant and i think the record supports the findings  at the end of the day the appellant's challenges on obstruction are factual in nature is related getting the issues he wants the district court and we've talked a little bit between the briefs on the different standards of review that apply on this court review of gifts st of all of the record is not ambiguous on acceptance of responsibility and i guess st i'd like to address mr the band's argument about bootstrapping there was no bootstrapping here of thirty one point one basically says if the defendant obstruct justice acceptance of responsibility is not appropriate it's not bootstrapping it's a function of the guidelines is this idea about what the government was or was not telegraphed and you know we agree meant about acceptance of course we signed executed a point but based on mr advise obstruction the district court just couldn't agree that that acceptance was appropriate and i want to be clear this is not a case like cook where you have you know two different bases for denying except an under any standard of review the proofs establish that this health care fraud scheme was otherwise extensive within the numerosity principles articulated in anthony and i think it's important to start out the analysis here by sed by stating that as the number of knowing participants increases we have a greater likelihood that the scheme is otherwise extends the nd circuit decision and carousel of that the appellant cites supports that proposition and again we're looking to establish the functional equivalent of atmosphere of god's direction by organizing to advance medical services in his name then you saw mr thought directing chando patel to form two separate show holding companies want to hold the interests of easy sleep supplies the other to bill michigan medical billing services and paramount home care and those bills were critical because they were the one submitting the claims and getting the pros the fraud health care reimbursements in the door you also saw mr rethought using a variety of aliases to obtain insurance policies this is not mr tells us less my colleagues have other questions i think we understand your argument thank you ok thank you your honor the last issue i'd like to address  would be if you complain about the consecutive supervised release sentence here not be very short this is a case with that there was an explanation for the consecutive supervised release sentence it's clear from the record that the district court understood its discretion to run that sentence consecutively or concurrently it did a thorough thirty five dollars if you three analysis fashion the way of the sentence and then it went the extra mile to import certain conclusions into its consec sure she went on to say it is really telling that he used it from the time he got out of prison in two thousand and twelve case right back to the kind of fraud against the united states it's now if you accept her