united states versus agency whereby clients would contract his agency to collect their accounts receivables and remit those account receivables back to their back to the clients eventually the government would charge request for restitution after mr pinto had protested that he had not received the underlying records and one of one of the underlying records that you're the you requested that the district court did not require the government to produce records were his quick book records that the government had and i mentioned that because the government stated during the during the hearing that the only records and use that there are the only records that they have that would support mr silver's  no i in the record it is a sentence by state by state in the records that we have the only records i'm sorry that's that's the government's counsel that they see the the records that exist are the quick book records later on in the following page or impeach seventeen mr pinto through his counsel on line nine protests they didn't give us the quick book records he goes on to say they turned over the spreads spread treat was that was wrong and they went back with mr silver  they had protested earlier that the government had not turned over the quick book records where is that that is first a court to look  or their appendix to support my claim they are disclaiming the existence of a request there disclaimed the existence of an earlier request they are conceding that he made a request in a letter that he submitted to court let's read it that way my missing something the the the footnotes just states you allege that you requested a yes but the government has wrecked so that's a ga one thirty five yes you're on an i q test and what do you say at one thirty five that's a front of me but maybe maybe what you're alluding to is a statement and that the first full paragraph of one thirty five says the last this second last may be the last and saying lessons this is particularly so where the underlying records in the form of are you ever say to the court ordered the government to give us these records not in those exact words your honor but that there would have been reasonable interpretation when this issue was before the district court a court doesn't deal disputes between the parties till someone says to the court they have to give them to us get order them to give them to us because they're not doing it fallen terribly but that never did go ahead because i'm not sure how this is a and error in any event because the court has tremendous discretion as to how it conducts these hearings and it seemed to think it was sufficient that it had the evidence from the  accomplice it had he sprayed sheikh and it had the evidence from at least one of the victims yes and to be a preponderance finding we allow these things to be done on a v thing yes your honor i use showed that that was a problem did you say to the court that you needed anything more to show that others were a problem because i didn't seek to do not anything more than i really pointed out in th because the evidence the government had was insufficient but you know you don't argue that on appeal because the the not i don't think that it was insufficient the court even when the evidence is sufficient the court has to give the  the defendant an opportunity to present to present his case and the only way that he could have presented his case was by reviewing the only records that would have supported the accomplices statement and those where the cook who quit book records the court opportunity and constitutionally has the right to present his case let's hear from the government and i know you want to re is we had what was effectively a multiple year dialogue with defense counsel about restitution the first motion for restitution background but you've got the quick book records themselves and instead of providing them with the quick books records you provided and provided his client with a summary of those records so having access to the original materials why didn't you provide those at the i think probably are the short answer is it was not clear to us that that was what the concern was with respect to spreadsheet it is certainly true that during the discussions that happened below this rescue that spread she was called into question but the position that was repeatedly taken by the defense was that they wanted additional victim impact statements when it came to supporting that not that they ultimately wanted the underlying records are you were you counsel i was not countable your honor you know records but i have i have had those conversations joiner with people who work out so below my understanding is that explicit question for underlying records with respect specifically i want to i want to make sure i recent not to give them to the defense and just say knock yourself out so i don't i don't believe that there is a reason to do that your honor but i do want to point out that where that was pointed out was with respect to the investor victims to which there's not a challenge here on appeal i mean you're referring to back to one that's correct and if you look it one thirty five and in fact if you look at one thirty four which is the page before that it shows that this section applies to the investor victims so with respect to the client victims yes the spreadsheet was but what was talked about below was instead requesting victim impact statements that's what judge and or hill had before him and that one thirty six refers to the client losses that is correct your honor one thirty six to one thirty seven you see the multiple paragraphs that are addressed to ask just broadly speaking understanding that you office's view was that it was limited to a difference of victims why not why not the spread sheet and to be clear you know i think there may be a little bit of confusion this spreadsheet was not a piece of work product that the government and mr sillars sat down and looked at records and created this this spreadsheet was a document that was found on mr sill risk computer and the way that we understand it to have been happen is that mr silver or one of his associates went in impressed a couple of buttons and created this xcel spreadsheet this excel spreadsheet was created in two thousand and eleven before the beginning of the conspiracy and before mr silver had anything to do with the government at that point so there was no reason i guess from the government's perspective it was a file that was found on mr silver's computer that tended to support the restitution and conversations of mr silver it understood that it did so i think the short answer your question your honor is the government didn't see there to be a need to turn over the underlying documentation  now tell us why that's why you problem was so and so the so the issue that was presented to judge underhill was the addition of the victim impact statements that is what they saw now the nature of the underlying fraud was such that it was a client that mr pindar round oxford oxford was a debt collection agency right that i know how much they've lost because they didn't know how much it collects and that's exactly right you honor and that is exactly what your gender health found that was the issue that was before him he made that finding and he thought that it was sufficient based on the evidence before him and i would direct your honour's of course to the standard review with respect to the m v array you need only be a result proximate and that happened here wanted the government asserts that the quick records were created in two thousand and eleven before this accomplice had any motive to to curry favor with the government however if that's the case and in the record i'm not saying that that isn't the case i'm just saying that the record doesn't support that because the work which we have turned over to the defense and and put forth before the court ever been created a spreadsheet based on the quick book records so is the suggestion that the one one item for almost a quarter of a million dollars that was inaccurate and this was this was and you knew that because because mr pinto recognized that his company never had the opportunity to to convert the funds of this one client i'm trying to figure out what it is you don't trust about the about the chart we don't trust that it's coming from this coconspirator who had lied before and had reason to particularly in from the quick book records from his quick book right so now you're saying well we want a quick book records will if the charts said that from these particular transactions it was one hundred dollars you don't think the government could add up the transactions on the quick books records yes but we don't know whether the government audited the book records with the way the way would you have done with the quick we would have audited them to see that they were actually created before this accomplice had reason to carry favor with the government and i also point out when when the government produced government suggest that in front of jantsch underhill mr penton principal point was there should be more victim impact statements and and and with respect to these victims he was not pressing the stress point is that you agree with that