swallow the fact that it doesn't make any difference if every one of these people were in dire need of services and they got the services everybody was had because that isn't the evidence along with the government's decision as to this further this ruling also invoked the concern in united states the echo bella which is a central district of california case in that case there was a concern about excluding evidence relevant partner that would also go to attack the government's case and she for show fail here on the government's part to prove any of the elements and that's exactly what happened here the evidence was relevant undermined the intent element of the and i would also point to eastern district of michigan decision in the united states the more linga in that case it bears a lot of similarity to the flood the defendant was allowed to present evidence related to whether  thirteen that the court could not apportion restitution for the aggregate harm and increase joint and several restitution upon multiple criminal defendants where the defendant are charged in multiple cases in the same case this court noted that the nd th and the d c circuits agree with this interpretation disallowing join and several restitution across multiple defendants and he says also makes practical sense for future cases do not highly paid their portion of restitution miss a ghost and could be responsible for a higher amount than would otherwise be if the situation had been apportioned and not having a bright line rule your could also result in a windfall to the victim and here the thirteen that the relevant conduct in question for the leadership role in hanson is not where the defendant merely exercise control over the activities of the enterprise the nature of the cycles and relevant conduct does not relate to her meeting or raping the safe harbor defense the court was actually very careful in its ruling to know that it was not heaping her from presenting evidence related to the safe harbor and in fact  even request a jury instruction on the safe harbor at the close of evidence at no time did she request that it that issue should be reviewed for plain air in terms of the other evidentiary ruling that the district court made connected to the safe harbor defense that would be the district court's ruling precluding her from hauling patients sole so i'd like to move on to the the restitution issue that was raised as well and here if she can establish plain error because she did not she wasn't harmed by what happened she hasn't satisfied the rd prong and in fact on her substantial right she actually was helped by the restitution order in this case the appellant argues that she  if somehow by virtue of this being joining several going going to be responsible for a larger amount and that's just not what happened in the district court they just report specifically of course and the payments so that she was only responsible for paying restitution and the claims which medicare paid based on that she recruited and if you look at the restitution amounts for the other defendants those amounts are much larger so she's not actually paying more money because her restitution is joint and several what other co defendants she's paying less because if they pay court restitution it could actually you say that well it's joint and several with these other people and they might pay stuff that would really redound to her i'm out with the converse being true that she conceivably could be liable for was very she's only responsible for that portion after which she contributed if the court has no other questions related to restitution i can move on to the sentencing in and what i would really like to do is clear up st the confusion on the the standard of review here so she factor he mentioned that she didn't have a leadership role compared to the other two hundred home health care agencies but that's not the same as objecting to the application of the sentencing hands so that could be read as a waiver because it shows an intentional choice not to raise that issue at the very least it should be reviewed plain error only in terms of the leaker and organizer and hence men cry that and  applies in a scheme with four more people where a defendant exerted control recruited other participants had decision making authority and  participated in the planning in organizing this and the evidence that supports that enhancement is her role in recruiting not just patients she wasn't just a patient recruiter she also recruited doctors  applies in terms of patient recruiters because she was recruiting doctors to participate as well they needed doctors sign off on the perceptions for home health care so she was preparing them and also telling the doctors how to prescribe and what to prescribe she told them to prescribe home health care she told them to prescribe certain medications she was basically bringing people in having doctors do what she needed to do and organise for her to  she brought in doctors is still within the discretion of her role as a recruiter she did recruit doctors as well as patients however the so different from whether she was a leader or what whether she was exerting control over the direction of the she was not substantially harmed her substantial rights were not harmed but we just want to push back on that she her substantial rights were harmed because not only is she the protocol defendant to have a portion liability given her economic standing and given the respect of contributions to the victims losses there was no factual finding as to whether she whether she actually contributed the amount that the district the alleged errors i understand was that she was lumped with people in an effort kate that's a different thing from saying that the horror stories about what can happen in joint and several military could have happened in a case in which nobody was joined but if any one case correct and while that is true i think if if several different cases were ruling on the  thanks to all the case will be submitted dinners thank you for your work at the clinic