will try to reserve two minutes of my time for a little this is a case of st impression at evolves a pretty unique procedural question that reimbursement for appointed counsel following death of the defendant was an obligation that arose with within the prosecution and he certainly had an obligation if you survived to to pay that even if you had one dollar of the supreme court  short because of his stipulations who are permanent receivership rich cannot now after his death is updated as conviction challenge of the receiver of power to review victims so case that's where just gallons opinion looks at whether the restitution sentence and the analysis is to sense the defendant or restitution you have to have a but it occurs to me that perhaps the right of the of his executor his wife to appeal the c j a may still be alive everything else is gone but that right made yet survive is there is there any and is there any impediment to us allowing the appeal of the c j issue to go forward well if you are you asking about the original order to reimburse council are worth this one of the estate of st impression this particular factual dilemma yet appropriately relied on the rich case and the brooks case a nd circuit case you were inquiring about and and  probably found that the c j order derives out of three thousand and six say it doesn't have anything to do with the criminal prosecution it is not a criminal remedy that is imposed based on indictment or conviction ultimately the c j order was in fact appealed on the merits affirmed by the th circuit and then the defendant joseph roberts did not seek a petition f both the government the federal defender presented evidence regarding available assets the report was careful not to include his wife's assets at that time when he was making need this he did inquiry because she did not consent to it in the c g a guidelines direct the court to do that so he made a careful determination of availability under the the case law that he says that he i don't think it would have paid and that that's what the rich and looks case instruction and that the court properly observed that those types of collateral orders because they are not born out of  criminal conviction or the criminal remedies imposed upon conviction that that would not have a is it true that you couldn't the court could ask or after being nursed in order c j order for the cost of his representation even after he was acquitted  which i included in our supplemental excerpts of record actually recounts the history in this case of mr robertson's affidavit c j affidavit requesting that he be appointed representation at the very time judgment lawyer appointed the company founder to represent him he specifically advised mr robertson that if further investigation found he did have assets to afford counsel the court could revoke the representation or require reimbursement of those costs under three thousand and six dollars and he subsection f and that's precisely what happened we went to trial in the in the st trial ended up in a mistrial and during that st trial information was the way that mr robertson that  actually at the same time he was asking for free federal defender representation had hired three different attorneys on three different matters to prosecute civil litigation and that's what prompted the court is referring to these funds that the the mr robertson already paid the special assessment fee and some payments toward restitution we also learned during that of the pin a c v s feel that mr robertson did make t three hundred dollars monthly payments towards a c j order so those are the the court found that those funds were paid personally by the defendant and when he ramit you know at as he was mandated when he dismissed the indictment the restitution order the special assessment order and the judgment of conviction at that time that was  august two thousand and nineteen the court specifically reserved the c j order and if you look at eighteen u s c three thousand and six a subsection c it states that if any time and i just want to exactly what happened in this case he made the original c g a determination based on a full and accurate accounting of ed why don't you have the government agree already that those money really best that discretion with the court and and all the other church of the estate who are trying to get money as well i'm sorry could you repeat that are there other writers of the estate we're trying to get money as well there may be there are district court found these funds once are available and and he cites a couple of cases that that support the proposition that when you're doing these c j determinations of availability you do not have to engage in a formal adversarial hearing you do not have to consider adjacent issues a priority when you're making those determinations and he judge well i found that these monies were paid in restitution and the special assessment were mr robertson's own money and so he could find a make a new finding now that the case has been remanded and these monies are going to be refunded to him and that that money was available to partially satisfy the should be refunded to the state and that there would be no further east of the government of we this particular client secondly on availability the statue's authorizes reimbursement t