well good morning again mr hanson you may proceed to bring your honors today of course i represent bri right in the nd case before the court this morning i'd like to focus primarily on restitution if time permits then i would talk about been in but for the direct and collateral financial consequences of the crime and of course it's also to ensure that a criminal defendant does not retain any financial benefit from his crime in this court of course the district court ordered twenty one thousand dollars as a reasonable estimate of harm in the court said that's not just for the money that he made by being a pimp but also the harm exceeding the money that he took from her it's difficult to estimate the harm but it's certainly a reasonable estimate the court made no credibility finding it didn't explain in any way how it determined that the calculation was difficult to do it didn't determine or explain in any way why it h concluded the twenty thousand dollars was a reasonable estimate now for me i thought your honour's i need to point out to the court in error that i made the st and i think our overall argument of course is the district court imposed an unreasonable restitution order i think inherent in that argument of course is that the restitution needs to be in compliance with the law and there is of course case law which i should have brought to the court's attention cannot include law from relevant conduct on lath the offense of conviction contains an element involving conspiracy elements of the offense or ongoing conduct and so of course the issue that i failed to bring to the  attention or to more sufficiently argue that i would ask the court to consider in its discretion regardless of whether you consider it an honest sort of argument or a new issue i do believe you have the discretion to consider is that mr right pled guilty the forest in this particular case because everyone was so focused on how much restitution that's the case and even if your honour's declined to consider that i just raised you know in this case i do think that ultimately the rest to tional work should have been limited to that one occasion of trafficking that mr wright pled guilty to a should not encompass anything else but if you decline to consider that and we go further i think that the case still requires for a man for several reasons with the court should not have so that was a rd jewelries double estimate that would have supported the twenty thousand dollars of restitution just from the crime of conviction i don't believe there is here and the reason i think that's the case i think we have a problem with the quality of the evidence here of course in proving restitution for the government that bears the burden to prove that particular amount and certainly the district court is allowed to make a reasonable aftermath but before we resort to the district court making a reasonable estimate in a patrician like this where the government put forward all sorts of calculations they put forward this many facts facts potentially occurred to this many times per day tell us anything the government didn't actually make a calculation and pointed to some things that emptied that in her statement to the f b i it pointed to some things that she said during her live testimony at the sentencing hearing but then he was that's hardly a consistent witness she gave very different accounts she said you know sometimes i made eighty dollars and sometimes it was three hundred dollars and sometimes it was once a day and you know sometimes it was ten times a day so when we're looking at a p of the evidence standard you know st off i will assume the district court found and the incredible when you find her credible which of her statements do we rely on and what really comes to my mind in this situation is we're doing drug quantity six to nine months we don't automatically go to the highest of those numbers we don't use nine months instead of six we go to the lowest of those numbers that's what the government puts for that's what the probation officer calculates and i think that to the highest that she set and if we actually look at her testimony she testified to the least amount of time if we're looking at police culpable conduct once per day she insisted repeatedly that she didn't see him every day and once in a while she said she did see mr wright every day but then she said she actually thought him every other day she said that eighty dollars was the least amount we have even with the five hundred dollars thick for month period and she repeatedly insisted that she made every effort not to give him any money at all she withheld as much as she could and she actually said i'd give him more than a rd of what i made for my prostitution activity now if we actually do the math and do a calculation based on those lower numbers like we would with a drug quantity pre sentence report once a day every other day for five months at seventy five dollars x eighty dollars or act where it's six thousand dollars if she gave mr right one rd of that sum of money were two thousand dollars that is a far far cry from twenty thousand dollars and i don't think the district gets to the point where it's allowed to make a reasonable estimate unless you st make the decision that it's too hard to calculate but here we have actual numbers to work with if then he had kept her records and came in and she said i gave mr wright one thousand five hundred and sixty two dollars i don't think we would be arguing that the district  ordering a two thousand dollars restitution or that the restitution was reasonably discernible we can determine that we don't need to go to ballpark a minute or two maybe we don't need to go to buy a parking it but if you look particular deference to the determination because the dish records and the unique position to evaluate the evidence in its totality which means that while it is kind of customary and drug cases that we tend always gravitate towards the low end it's not necessarily reversible if we have a judge who says i think it's in the middle or i think it's on the high end right because we're still supposed to give that deference so i assume your argument here is the judge didn't explain enough for us to give any deference to a fried case where we have you know thousands of documents and there's just no way to really hammer down what happened here but that's exactly the point here and i think he the nail in the hat the judge didn't tell if any reason he didn't say why is it  he didn't say that you can look at this record you look at this record you could tell why it was difficult i mean the difficulty is just sort of how the evidence lady and i mean it's like could be one day could be ten times a day could be every day could be every other it could be eighty dollars could be four hundred bucks and then there are other there's other evidence in there about the victim having been injured or otherwise harmed in this relationship and so i mean if you're the judge you know you're not just bound by it's not is your honor but i think that there has to be actual evidence to support that the government never put on any further evidence and and certainly death you know i agree with you on this record we have you know maybe it with eighty dollars and four hundred dollars but when the government has that burden couldn't the government just ask a few more questions couldn't we have clarified that couldn't the district court have sitting there right then asked and the question at the end of the day we have no idea how the district court reached this number we don't know if interview that was done with a minor victory it's important to note that references to what she said earlier till mr wright taking a rd of her money that was done earlier in the best investigation she was not cooperative and not willing to be forthcoming until shortly before sentencing so government for is an interview done with the victim shortly request and the thing and then we also relied on statements made in the sentencing transcript so when the government is trying to accepted and i think it's accepted in this case is how many times a day was there a commercial sex act how many days a week you multiply about how much money sex act was and then how many weeks did this go on for   how many days a week in her interview she said seven days a week and then at page fourteen of the transcript she said that it was probably most days of the week how much money she said in her interview one hundred  hundred dollars and her transcript she said eighty dollars to three or four hundred dollars on piece thirteen that by the way is consistent with how martial sex acts in the pricing of the various sex acts work that's not a reflection of her  being wishy washy how many weeks was the stablished that by about october two thousand and seventeen until mid april two thousand and eighteen when the defendant was in jail that's how long the sex trafficking occurred so let's do the math her testimony that it was most days so let's put aside the time to the week we're going to say most of the week that's forty is week the average amount is two hundred dollars if we're on the conservative side how many weeks let's say all of november through all of march let's say that's about twenty weeks that's conservative when you do the math and you multiply that out that's eighty thousand dollars now there is discussion about how much mr wright took from her and she had various statements about well he took the money and she didn't hide it she said in her prior interview she said i thought she had money a lot during her testimony even if you credit her very initial statement in which she said he took about a rd of the money which i don't think is the case and i think it was clear to her testimony and her interview that he took more than that even if it's a rd then that that rd is more than twenty thousand dollars so when you do the math you're ours and then i think it's clear that it's not clear error here for the just a judge to have awarded twenty thousand dollars to the victim in this case just to address a couple other points that were made  there was discussion about well we should always go to the low end and it should always be at the low and you should look at those like a drug case in this case that doesn't make sense and sex trafficking cases that doesn't make sense the nature of how victim are controlled by the defendant the relationship so in this case a minor victim it was understated she had a romantic relationship with the with the defendant when she was beginning when she was sixteen years old there was evidence that he was violent to her that she would give him money because she she she rationalized that that she was going to support him she clearly still loved him part of the reason this is clear error of you and i think that the court should defer to the district judge because he was he could look at her testimony look at her demeanor he could see that the courtroom was full of people that were supporting him that many times in her testimony she talked about how  was really upset because people were thinking she was she talked about how this had been very personally difficult for her page eighteen i want to ask how she felt about mr right she says she was disappointed she wasn't disappointed because he had had heard that he had threatened her that he had put her in the situation she was disappointed quote because of the way that he made it seem like i was telling on him about something that i didn't know about and then she went goes on to say i don't know how to say it i don't now so she didn't want to be there she didn't want to do that it was clearly very difficult for her to give that testimony and so i think that it is fair for the district court to also consider the statements that she had me to law enforcement preprocessor to her testimony when she did wasn't sitting there staring directly at mr right but even if we just take the conservative estimate based off of what she said at her  hotel so what about the restriction on him having contact with his own money to children so the condition is really just that he has to get prior approval when you look at united states  and he i think he had or was going to have nine children she he had a sexual relationship with a fifteen year old in her produce a child had a sexual relationship with this girl when she was starting to be sixteen he had  well i would of course invite the court to do the math for yourselves you can read these statements i would make the point of course that the earlier statement that the government points to the bows were not empty words that was a recitation by an officer that interviewed her this occurred six months after the incident the government made kind of a point of you know she said only one rd at that particular time and then she testified differently at the sentencing hearing that the question of the sentencing hearing did you give him money after most every date no i only gave it to him when he needed it are there times you had money from him yeah a lot would you hide money i didn't want him to have it would he sometimes go through your things and take your money when he felt like it i don't know that that's really stepping away from one rd and again at the end of the day you know the government has put forth a lot of information about you know the victim was scared and she was in a courtroom well that's all fine but i don't think we need the government to tell us that i think we need the district court to tell us that and