seventeen and the indictment doesn't even start listing conduct until two thousand and fourteen years later and her her her stevens at sentencing and she explained to the core and this is that you are seventy and seventy two  date for the injury date they list november st two thousand and seventeen more than three years later addition further  to recognize that defendants are required to pay restitution for losses they caused and when there are multiple causes even when an offense has horrific underlying facts the defendant is still entitle to have their losses of course and and should not be shouldered with the entire losses that may have had other causes and so mr zak really isn't asking for the moon here he's asking for do not think that he that under that defense counsel blow waived preventing those other causes because it is you know had no basis to know what exactly went into a p t s d diagnosis she knows that she is talking that she talked to a doctor about seven years of abuse and that may have been one cause but he doesn't have the knowledge that the doctor would and we would not be here today your honour's if the doctor statement said  doesn't appear grim it isn't fair to interpret the plead remit is indicating restitution obligation is broader than just the conduct that issue in the count of conviction because the other victim wasn't even involved in not continuing offenses they are an incident on a single day i submit to this core united states the boris which was recently decided by this court that for a single shots with a gun it constitutes four separate assaults it is not a continuing course of conduct and here mr is actually pleaded guilty to rethink will solve anything will day and took pains that every opportunity at sentencing in sentencing briefing to make sure that he the assault on december th two thousand and fourteen he did not feel guilty to the date range and further that would have been even if the date range were discussed more fully that that would have been multipl es for multiple assault as the my time is expired can i go over to answer your question your honor yes go ahead and finish your answer think you know if that date range were the basis for the assault that would be extremely problematic because that would make assault as a discrete offense it is not a continuing event and it can only be for a single act and so that would be multiplicity as for it to be multiple offenses during that three year period and restitution for an abuse of discretion and the factual finding supporting the order and upgrading in this case to include actual findings regarding pozzi action for clear error and i would just briefly note that in was maintaining his factual innocence with respect to c e o he agreed that factual matter should be considered beyond the specific count that he was admitting to and essentially admitted factual guilt at his  he was attempting to strike a balance between what mr exactly for her to admit to oh and what the grabber meant and these are put words in the government's view had charged and could prove the government maintains that directly attributable to the specific assault in a domestic violence context resulting for instance stansell bodily injury that the defendant pled to i believe the district court was correct in that the law does not require that level of parsing and instead sought is that is that bennett was the proximate cause of the loss and that there was no intervening cause that was not directly attributable to the dependency admitted offense of conviction and there was a new circumstance the defendant did not himself create well so let's assume for a moment that we didn't agree with that conclusion because the police say that in other words doesn't matter whether or not the district judge  contemplates restitution for both victims of this of whether or not the account and the offense was dismissed and your honor the district court right at the outset of the hearing relayed that that was his understanding of the particulars was long surpasses in accordance with the rule there was never any issue as to what was charged in that haven't quite honestly the government tends to lump similar misconduct togethers in the defendant is it typically sorting out exactly where it's charges kind of the bill of particulars that was never requested here because again as independent notes in his sentencing memorandum it twenty three dollars he was aware of what the government had charged and could  actually can see that that's an appropriate priest knows the events of the plane too but says he's trying to strike a balance between what he is prepared to admit to and what the government could prove and he doesn't object to that increase now there were certainly other assaults and i every opportunity to ask her were there other tragic events other tragic events that could have contributed to this diagnosis he declined to ask a single question for me it doesn't appear t language is both victim and that's what repeated throughout the entire record and seeing hearing and in the objections to the restitution as as well as in the sentencing memorandum and