convicted of making a false statement during an interview with an a t f agent during the course of an arson investigation mrs lawson was interviewed three days after the arson fire during that interview she claimed that she entered a male market which is a business in the place of fire and turned off an alarm at a specific date and time when she knew she did not enter the mill mark did not turn off  them at that time that is the language in the indictment it is the language supporting the factual basis of her plea in district court the statement is not on itself involved in arson as a result there was a sentencing hearing due to the objections and the disagreements of trial counsel on the application of the arson crossreference in this last ins present report and presumably that syncing hearing was application of the arson cross reference was proper and section to be one dollar our position on appeal i think is very narrow and that is whether or not ms lawson statement alone and without more strictures the cross reference and more specifically was there enough evidence presented at miss last incensing here to trigger the cross reference i think even the the government can agree because they don't dispute it in their response brief and and we talk about it in our opening three that the indictment does not reference an arse at all and practically that is the reason why the government chose to proceed obviously because of the objections of the trial counsel at the district court level because the enticement and the plea colloquy do not involve the cross reference and so the analysis then starts that's the road to how we get from point a the often conned or the charts cond to point b is that often conduct sufficient to apply the cross reference that's important and the  is her statements do not get you to those statements involving arson now the realm of comic knowledge as i think is pretty straightforward every district court judge is eminently aware of it i know that this panel is imminently aware of the definition of relevant conduct and how it relates to acts of defendants and what their office is what their office conduct involves and here the government states are stated at the sentencing hearing and this is important that the cross reference was a political will because miss long stint is not an act of the defendant and relevant conduct is about is clearly about tying acts of the defendant together it's not about we don't think our position is what we believe to be made up facts with regard to this case and that is that you know there inferring that miss lost in made these statements for certain reasons well  the the government obviously in the court is allowed to make reasonable inferences from facts that are on the record but these we believe are under reasonable inferences for medo facts because there is no evidence that lost in made these statements as a part of some arson conspiracy there is no evidence that mrs long stint made these statements because she knew the person who at this table the alarm and was the government's investigation that led to this questioning of her the questioning related to an arson there's no doubt about that that we're not disputing that your honor we're not honor we think that's too attenuated i mean the fact of the matter is on its face her her often conduct is merely stating that she entered business at a dating time when in fact she knew she did not enter the business at that date in time that's her off and condo the government has stated in essentially the district court has agreed in what we believe to be an error that solely because the government had chosen to take this investigation on as an arson investigation and that miss lawson made statements during the course of that arson investigation that the cross someone investigating arson correct yes ma'am you're on and so does that the facts in any way whether her offense involved are s ah no well here here's the thing based on the definition of what involved in is and in this it is in guidelines and the commentary on what it's the johnson case which we reference in our opening brief and in that case the court the my circuit did find that johnson's defendant johnson statement which was made to an investigator after an arson was part of a continuing course of conduct and that it was false in order to cover up the our system itself that was committed by the defendant and recall relevant conduct also includes  conduct by and in an intimidating to avoid detection or responsibility and so the knox circuit as i read johnson it is true that in that case the facts are that there was evidence clear and convincing evidence that the person who made the false statement also committed the arson but i don't see that the decision somehow ties that as a requirement to be involved in involved in our set well it i think that it does your honor because it's in the johnson case johnson makes the statements subsequent to the arson and those statements themselves were about the arse end for the purpose of throwing investigators you know off the trail and so mr johnson statements involved substantive crime of arson and in that it was a series of ongoing conduct by the defendant in that case related to yours and so i think that is the distinction between mr johnson's case where the th circuit did find proper application of the arson cross reference and this case because miss launched in statements are not connected to the arson in any way other than the can i get i mean they're trying to find out who they are if they are connected to the are arson they're trying to figure out how what occurred and it's important to know whether the fire alarm had been turned on or turned off and when right i mean that's part of the investigation into who committed the arson well your honor i disagree alarm but rather you feel or was turned off at this particular time might it not have allowed or explain that is the time somebody was entering the building to avoid detection right for her part in the arson and the evidence on the record was sufficient to support that then yeah absolutely a lot of nonsense connects i think but that's not what we have here believes she reset it the problem is that the alarm was she said that she reset the alarm at nine hundred and thirty three she actually it was it was was the one who when the n f those times and turned off the alarm and then she ceased to answer questions after after that point i believe judg hit the nail on the head in saying that the whole point here is that he turned off the alarm or said she turned off the alarm because of an arson arson was the crime that they were didn't turn off the alarm to allow murder she didn't turn off the alarm for an art theft or a drug deal she turned it off or said she turned it off knowing that the officers were investigating an arson a that occurred that evening that tells me you're is it your position that this enhanced or this guideline provision applies to any false statement made op arson investigation no matter how well yes i believe that it does because that would under the expansive definition given its if that would be involved in here it's involved in to the extent that it undertaken criminal enterprise with amanda ellis who was the male mart who did plead guilty she not her for eight years worked for for eight years amanda ellis did plead guilty to a similar false statement charge the cross reference w off the alarm and so forth and she said well what are you investigating and they say well it doesn't matter we just want to know if you did this with the result be different in that case now you don't know to be the same i believe  then you're looking at the invoking arson mode from her perspective at all but from the government's although i guess you could try to say it is from her perspective because because the charges were bringing court was interpreted in the phrase involved in am not involved involved so is there a difference i don't think that this court has yes it was and i see no i see no reason to draw a distinction between it involved arson or it was involved in arson if you give the word involved an expansive meaning as the supreme court has indicated and several other courts have also indicated that it should be interpreted that way this seems that clear case where the judge properly looked at the evidence determined that this statement was involved in arson it was not just a she entered the business she alleges she entered the business for a purpose that purpose was related  i would dispute the allegation that the government had a hearing in this case because we knew that link was lacking in else there was no such hearing and the cross reference was still applied and also i want to briefly just touch upon the smith case and the definition of involved in the court in smith case was dealing with the situation on firearm use in what it was determining when that use not dealing with a firearm for its built purposes for shooting was involved in a crime and it talks about making a false and in smith the supreme court specifically stated involved in for the purpose of the firearm did cover that because the misstatement with regard to transfer for example the example that the court use firearm involved in the substantive chrono made the misstatement involved in the substance of crime the transfer of the farm in so in every case whether it's smith or whether it's johnson and the statements or the the the false statements that the defendant makes that subjects into the cross reference has some materiality of the substantive underlying crime your honor thank you thank you counsel we will take this