thank you very much your honour's i really think it can't be disputed here that there was a violation of the statute and the violation was actually aggravated by st a complete lack of warning and nd a sitting on right the president supports spoke of restitution to the crime victims fund only a c c c yes was notified by the government agency c c s ignored the government until a month after sentencing provided discovery of medical records to the defense prior to the entry of the record there of the prosecutor at the hearing on the government's motion to reopen restitution indicated the discovery had been provided in the form of medical records i don't remember if it indicates when it was provided but it probably was provided before the plea the problem your honor though is why does not constitute notice to and the restitution the court ordered was a two hundred and seventy six dollars plus for the crime victims fine that's the problem here it's not that he wouldn't have been complaining if he got restitution ordered at had the sentencing hearing the problem is that it didn't get ordered there and don't hold him hey this is going to be opened down the road the way the way they defended bill and was informed the way they've been in a coup was form that's the problem here your honor not that not that he didn't have any idea at any point that it might happen at sentencing the problem is he he has a right under the statute and i don't know it's sentencing warren know that it's still up in the air the real the real being given what appeared to be finality in the two hundred and seventy six dollars restitution order and then having that snatched away yeah the prejudice is something that don't recognize to one of its considerations one of the one of the reasons dolan said it was ok to let the time limits lie is that the defendant who's warned the restitution is still up in the air can basically enforce the time limit him self it made the point that the defendant can force the ninety days by saying to the court hey you're supposed to do this within ninety days and if the district court then said no i'm going to violate the statute a way to defend it could even see mandamus the problem is the defendant doesn't have that option as or any reason to exercise it anyway when no one's told him that restitution is still up in the air so he's also prejudiced in that way he's he's basically had his right to enforce the ninety day limit the dolan recognized taken away from him because no one's told him there's anything else left to be considered so i think there's prejudice in those two ways and your honor i think there has to be some line drawn somewhere and the government's position as i thought about it is basically that they could come into court twenty years after sentencing and ask for restitution and nothing could be done about it by either the defendant or the court and that can't be right that actually draws the naive dateline and what dolan says and what i don't publish pr casey says i'm with the publishers who okays implies is that you can't keep you know you haven't any day limit can be overlooked if the defendant decides not to enforce it and he knows the issues still out there it can't be  to make them all from the law a wasp here is pretty clear as a result of a horrific assault with a deadly weapon by your client your client knew from the date of the offense that he had committed pretty severe injuries on his victim for which the victim through the arizona medicaid now seek reimbursement for the costs of medical treatment and i guess the question is who's prejudiced here your client or the victim we grant you to relieve your requests well this is being prejudice but partly do is to add to his own fault of not responding to the government when the government inquired about whether they wanted restitution which they apparently according to the prosecutor the hearing very very early if ever see this was a big surprise that they usually don't want to bother sending you on to that as a premise in your question that i think that respectively at least seeks speed primarily to help the victims of crime and only secondarily to help the defendant so there is a secondary interest in the defendant and i think there's also this this concern about finality is not just should the secondary interest trump the did should trump the primary interest when the court when no one gives the defendant and the court gives no notice at the time of sentencing that there's still restitution up in the air but what we're saying is the court at least has to tell the defendant i'm going to keep thinking about this it's out there i may not even do it within ninety days but you can come and ask me and make me do it in ninety days if you want unless i maybe show some good reason  end which was sort of tongue in cheek but i think i understand this point and that being that your client doesn't have the resources probably to pay the two hundred and seventy three dollar restitution award and he probably is never going to be able to pay seventeen thousand dollars medical bills so what are we arguing about here i mean is it just early a question of statutory interpretation without regard to the problematic your honor because the statute gives the defendant the right to a least get finality if it's not given to him by the court that statute and dolenz interpretation the statute says the defendant can go in there and force it and they that opposing counsel is talking about is inconsistent actually what what the both the supreme court identified as potential prejudice in these scenarios and what this quincy and waco said the supreme court  dolan talked about prejudice being something along the lines of the unusual cases where the lapse of time prevented the defendant from affectively challenging the restitution that's certainly not the scenario here and in they made clear that the purpose of the statute wasn't to protect the defendant from drying out since the proceedings were to establish finality which is kind of what that and mister gun's argument is going towards so because the know problem if this information initially had been presented at the original said scene the fact that it was presented play makes it a timing problem and that's exactly what it seems play goes into when we're dealing with the defendant certainly was on notice that restitution for medical expenses was in play it was in the plea agreement and at the change of plea hearing the magistrate judge specifically said you're required to pay restitution which includes medical expenses so the defend once a response was received from arizona medicaid i didn't hear the st body question judge starr i thought there was a two month delay between the receipt of the letter which came sentencing the government gave its notice the defendant did have the notice at sentencing this is a matter of restitution the government was seeking so stance when it goes has nothing to do with the situation where a defendant  ascends gets a certain amount of institution and then all of a sudden down the road they announce well we're going to add more nd the prejudice that dolan talked about was not just the example of losing a witness if you restitution he completely loses his right to try to enforce the ninety day deadline so that's a nd form of prank humans as the right to abort the death by buddies does not lose the right to challenge the amount or you're well but i think your honor what that passage suggests is that the defendant does have a justifiable interest in being able to get finality on his own by seeking it if it's not given to him on it's own by the  well does it mean as long as there is some due process here and the defendant is fully entitled to a merits hearing on whether or not a the rest is in a word should be amended and b if so what that amount pay and nd not being able to at least get the court to tell him by the deadline in the statute there if i would like to know my dad now rather than what it might be twenty years from now or five years from now or two years from now or whatever might be and i think that passage and dolan recognizes that there is an interest in that but it's secondary enough that we'll leave it up to the defendant to enforce it but when you don't even warn the defendant there might be more the defendant