in this case to begin it is important that we get the standard of review right you know although we agree with the government that factual findings are reviewed by clearly running a standard and they do have the burden here the law we're talking about is the guideline and so with that to know how standard in mind it's important i think to answer two questions did the government expenditures here amount to unnecessary expenditures and substantial and we do not dispute the facts why if we dispute is the application of those  to this guy in this case so the reason that i submitted the language of the standard of the statute yesterday was because i think to start thinking about this case we need a half hours a little less than four days and the question then becomes just in terms of the timing is it possible to have an international up the rental kidnapping  case in last than three days and three quarters of a fourth day now we've all probably taken international flights and then tried to on the fly book flight back i think it is highly unlikely it could be done in less than three days so the case law supports their every case this court has decided eleven it doesn't say how much after but clearly sometime in september of two thousand and one because the charge was a lie twelve two thousand so we don't know exactly how much time we know because of the disaster of nine eleven we don't have anything like that here we have just the basics the government also relies on a sixth circuit case tackett which was a perjury case  they say that involves four days but it actually and about four days of electronic surveillance plus investigation of witnesses plus an entirely new trial of the defendant's so they had perjured themselves to cover up for so there is no comparison there if we go to the actual substantial us if you will of the resources this case is unlike any other case and now there are no false identifications there's no false driver's license or passport there's no prepaid cell phone tied away indeed when he gets to turkey not to pakistan his final destination but just to turkey he calls to his wife numerous times not just says i am here with the children in turkey world it didn't require additional interest it didn't require an additional grand jury he didn't require new trials there was no search of the four continents for him and he didn't institute a new legal proceedings this case is unlike every other reported or unreported case that neither the government or the defense could find in addition those silencing commission they know how to make a specific offense characteristic apply if you look at almost any  guideline in the book let's take robert to be three point one you will see that there's pacific offense characteristics including for robbery he had two they say in ten thirty seven violation cases which are new mail fraud cases and two they could have done that here for those two gerry one point two  resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice or how are substantial if you fear it's measured it can be measured a number of factors but in this case with these facts it was measured to investigating this this crime in getting the children back to chicago so you know it's a it's a measurement not just in time but also it's qualitative in terms of also qualitative in terms of what happened during those four days i don't have any problem with the substantiality issue here that's heavily fact by owned and we've got many law enforcement agencies international and domestic involved but the commentary to the mine also requires unnecessary expenditure of substantial government resources and i'm not sure how to read that in the context of this crime because an international y defendant argues that international kidnapping will always by definition you know involve necessary expenditures to get the children back and so how are we to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary governmental expenditures for purposes of this enhancement with respect to international prince will connect me right this crime in particular it's that's what we're here for your honor with respect to or is your honor asking with respect to the specific facts or just generally what's what's the meaning of that term in this context i mean that's in the that's in the commentary it's not in the guidelines of the guidelines just says substantial interference with the administration of justice but then it's further defined in the commentary do and this is the only subsection of the commentary that is conceivably implicated here so there must be the necessary expenditure expenditure of substantial governmental resources and i don't know how to answer that with respect to the international pretzel kidnapping because it with international principle kidnapping i mean the argument would go that these resources were necessary and they were the typical types of resources that if the children actually do make it to the other country like not an attempt scenario they all of these expenditures would have been necessary  you know looking at this court's decision and reasoning in hades and eight the court did not go into that language or of the commentary but i mean did talk about i'm not differentiating between you know just looking at the facts and what was what was necessary at least in part arguably necessary to the investigation and the prosecution of the underlying crime so i mean i'm not answering your question  could by i mean there could be a case that's charged under section total for the substantive crime here where the parent kidnaps the children then brings them back i mean that still never became necessary yet the government did a gauge with ministry of justice in that the country a which said the family was attempting to go from new york but the kids were safely secured in new york so it's only an attempt i could see that the facts of you know law enforcement personnel in the united states engaging with their foreign counterparts in with the foreign justice ministry was not necessary because you know day defending when the children were intercepted in new york had never made it to the foreign country those expenditures would have been a necessary because again the children were safely secure it prior to leaving the country and that's one example or i can see that you know the fact that the government was working at head of itself and you know what  not particularly confident that the kids would be that the children would be intercepted at the new york airport and it made you know efforts with foreign counterparts that turned out to be unnecessary because as you know for today's events that the children were intercepted in the united states problems but they're never but that's never a part of this it's so what it was what this is about this this statue that somehow just in connection with but then the the criminal is not charged with those police expenditures so what is it about this international kidnapping that  again looking at the application of the enhanced brain in a scenario like this again offenses generally only that doesn't there are many cases are there you have a case involving the domestic you know kidnapping for example when the kidnapper was charged with the blue sixpences i know i don't know the answer to that your honor if it has been applied to a domestic kidnapping case i don't know the answer to that eight i think the issue here with respect to whether or not this enhancement applies in with respect to international crimes of kidnapping the fact that it could apply to virtually most if not all international printed kidnapping cases i don't think  there not all international cases your honor and again going back to the case that judge kenya was referencing that was a contempt of court case we have cited it was a what it was a contempt of court case i believe the eye and i'm going to put your this the in but i engage decision i mean the court in that case and it was another international prince all kidnapping case but this court held in that he say it's appropriate that you know when the defendant takes  child outside of the country you know that defendant interfered with state courts ability to decide where and with him the child support is that right in the eye and gave case they applied the enhancement focusing solely on the fact that the defendant travel to mexico conduct surveillance and then return the child back to indiana that would listen ball then defendant have an opportunity to challenge what the normal expenses are for international kidnapping have to agree with the point they are honour's making that this enhancement very likely will apply in these scenarios depending on the facts where you have a court order and where you have a substantial and very concentrated effort to get to investigate and then return the children back to the united states i don't think that it was a they would have done that in any event but i don't think that he would have your honor but i don't think that that negates application of this and yes many here but it's so rare government does seem to have a policy where i think we i think the governor know you can do this but it's done very rarely and when we haven't been told what criteria th government uses in deciding whether to impose this additional cost on the phone and i understand the point honour's making but i don't know that this really lends itself to black and way lines given just how factually dependent i do now stand that there's an expense connected with you know tracking down the kidnapper so if you know what the expenses why can't you just charge it to the criminal i'm not sure what else to say with respect to how it's apply i keep going back to the fact that it's very fact specific and i just i don't think it lends itself well to a black and white rule that if it's you know this amount of time why not many the criminal the international component here your honor the violation of a court order it is the facts of this this defecation i think do the measures that were taken in dealing with you know the turkish foreign mini order in that case it was an ongoing custody battle which does seem a little bit different than a direct court order if we're looking at fans i would case that has been the subject of some discussion in that case just so your honour's know how nancy has made many many preparations to hide fast passport false id fled nobody knew about her where she was going she went to mexico and it took three weeks to find her because she was the only person who knew where she was going to score other courts have said that actually is a distinguishing characteristic that makes it more difficult when somebody is deliberately hiding so that they can't be found and it didn't happen here the reason that they found my client in the children is because he raised his hands called his wife and said i'm here come here so if anything he medicated whatever the reasonable expenses would