of post conviction rehabilitation post offense rehabilitation i should say and the district court was silent as you know the district court under the stratum of their us is required to adequately adequately explain the chosen sentence to follow to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing in our case our chief if only single mitigating argument was that mr woods had essentially sense that they did his offense to the date of his conviction and and it's much to argue really it's pretty straightforward if there's any questions i'll rest on my may please the court balls are for the united states the district court did not commit procedural error in sentencing defendant rice wants to seventy months imprisonment contrary to mr goodyears argument the district court was well  of the defendant's argument about his post indictment job and you can see it throughout the sentencing transcript defendant raised it in his sentencing on the also during the sentencing hearing the district court talked with the defendant about this precise argument just record acknowledged that she understood the locations overseas where the defendant had opportunities to work at the district court as well as he wouldn't be allowed to leave th particular argument so that it's evidence that she didn't overlook the issue exactly right on time and moreover your honor the right after talking about the fact that he couldn't leave the district despite having these opportunities overseas the district court asked the defense specifically what the job entailed and mr gutierrez gave only the restoration about what the job involved after that the district court listen to me give arguments about why despite mr woods having this job that shouldn't weigh in imposing the sense that the aggravating factors in this case far outweighed this potential mitigating factor and so also for all of that because of this colloquy that took place on the record just moments before the district court imposed sentenc months well we know that she considered mitigators because she said the only mitigating thing i see is the lack of a criminal record absolutely around and that's exactly the point she she clearly considered mitigating factors and this point that the defense is making that this was the only mitigating argument that he raised that's just not the case the defendant's main arguments in mitigation and they came in the sentencing memo and they came during oral argument during argument at the sentencing hearing were that he came to chicago to study music that he got roped into this scheme by his brother william woods that he only went to nursing homes to play guitar for patients there at the direction of his brother and his codefendant this case dr king and feral  that he was nothing more than a piece a manager from iowa and that he's the one who is taking the fall for the crimes of his brother these are all arguments that the defendant made in mitigation and to suggest that this argument  that he was working at the time between the time of his indictment in the time of his sentencing in this case was the only mitigating argument that he made that's just not the case and that's not borne out by the record that's not what he presented to the district court and so in all these money in this for yes your honor and actually that was the main point that the district relied on in sentencing to seventy mile it's one of the main points as the government presented to the jury at trial and as the government presented again at the sentencing hearing the actual loss to medicare was over one and a half million dollars over the scope of the five year fraud amount sought by the two defendants dr farrel and mr gutierrez his client bryce woods was approximately three point four five million dollars so this was this was a huge fraud the fraud lasted for over five years and in terms of the actual crime that the main crime was billing medicare under one specific psychotherapy code it was code nine zero eight one eight and mr gutierrez his client was the one responsible for submitting those bills price would submitted in that five year period over thirty thousand individual claims to medicare seeking this money not one of those claims was for an accurate a truthful psychotherapy session they were all they were all lies i was wrong to say that probably there isn't damage done to th i'm sorry on the damage done to those patients the damage done it was argued in the district court your honor it was that these patients weren't actually getting real psychotherapy services real mental health services this was that was a significant point to the district court in posing the are patients at nursing homes many of the patients had dementia also timers things of that sort and so these were some of the most vulnerable patients out there they couldn't cry out they were getting the services that they beat it was there any information in the record about this company american leaders thirty years rehabilitative job and none from the government your honor i know of the existence of the company held themselves out as managers of two companies that were known by dr feral take action and or arcs and they contracted with various nursing homes throughout the state of illinois as being able to provide medicare covered psychotherapy services to mental health patients at the nursing homes is there no oversight by the state for quality control and credentialing purposes that this is a heavily regulated industry it is a regulated industry are and that was part of the fraud dr farrell held himself out as as true as being a licensed clinical psychologist he was the problem with the fraud was that he was never going to the nursing homes to see patients and that's that's where there was a shortfall that's where there was a problem but the nursing staff on site isn't blowing the whistle without saying we've just got a guy playing guitar here he's not doing anything other than that and we had some of the nursing home a just wanted to clarify something that mr serves the medication that he talks about about whether or not he was a leader organizer that went to the sentencing guidelines and we are not mean he's not playing guitar for the american leaders he's as opposed to going out with his brother who was a licensed clinician and whose brother told mr woods listen i think it would be beneficial to my patients if you came out and played guitar for them and recall mr woods was a train baritone he was a professional musician he had gotten his master's degree in music and so when his older brother said i think it would be beneficial if you came out and sang and played guitar to my patients mr woods had no reason to doubt his older brother who was a licensed clinician so i argued  that to the district court in the district court rejected that argument which is fine i don't have a problem that i do have a problem however i do have a problem when my only legally recognized argument