you get to look at the underlying facts if you need to i think the categorical approach which is you know i really think that john one which started here before the supreme court was a categorical approach case and you see the sea supreme court struggling with what we have to do the categoric opposed to how we were with protecting the rights of immigrants throughout the country to come to us through different laws and different convictions and pleas and and guilty can the condition was a specific event at a specific moment in time and the language in the statute which we go back to the categorical use the language is that's the language of the statute does not come into play in this information until the very include it in terms of the statutory language of using us our writings assign a signal or pictures to transfer things and wire communication that introductory language your honor were spent five years of time not one moment at an a from from from the law you can't divorce the conviction which is a very precisely worded conviction for one thing she did from the losses that are tied to that if you look at the first account certainly would be a wire would be if you can go to the bank and say can you please put money from this account which i'm in charge of for my in laws and put it in my account she could one of them is right check payable turns out i mean maybe technically the digital world comes into play but it doesn't come under those precise words eighteen u s c thirty forty three i think that when you're explaining this big five year thing they could have also put in she wanted to her father was garage and so golf clubs and they severely ill in laws and two were and to rip them off and she did it and she hasn't denied doing it that's one thing you refuse your grief she has it hidden from that is they're ugly ugly fat and this is a very sophisticated government it's department of justice that was this the prosecutor in massachusetts or court it's the department of justice if i might immigration judges that make the decision they could have easily ramped it up to her on the is a middle class suburban housewife raising two kids and a horrific household of a gender teeth knocked out they said we're going to punish you but we're going to make sure you get back to those kids we're also going to make sure that you pay back your victims and we send you hundred twenty to two hundred thousand dollars with only one wire transaction and then out of six thousand dollars and then the court said that that's just included as that durst fictional hook the element and that the scheme is what we're looking at but th beginning a paragraph when they allege the scheme they list four different the u s attorney's office listed four different ways that she used the wires she transferring money from her in laws banks to her own she transferred money to her own credit in which the loss to the victim exceed ten thousand dollars dollar looking for is if this off sense of conviction resulted in a loss greater than ten thousand dollars and whether or not it involved specific wire transactions we have a loss to the victim of it showed that a loss of the victim was more than ten thousand dollars if you look at the pre sentence investigation report here it talks about the victim lost which has the same nine hundred fifty four thousand dollar figure and then her base offense level for the sentencing guideline calculation live increased by fourteen points because the loss of the victim exceeded four hundred thousand dollars so we have the present investigation report the further support the information which clearly alleges that number of  the judgment of conviction which entered the restitution order and adopted the presents investigation report in whole and again the course decision in a lock of what seems to be a sticking point were revolved around just the fact that there were dismissed counts in a locked it seems to me to be really not hurt the point is what's the sense of conviction and are is the last particularly tethered the convicted counter to the conviction and that's what i'm struggling how is this nine hundred fifty four thousand dollar loss particularly tethered to this one a charge wire because it was the overall that mr relies on where i'm going to avoid immigration consequences by pleading guilty to an offense is under ten thousand dollars and it seems to be kind of a theme but again the only evidence he's going to  and this is where she's arguing for a follow guideline sentence below the thirty three to forty month then that i was actually based on her fourteen point increase because the last of the victim is more than four hundred thousand dollars and this is the second  so to come now and say that this plea agreement with part of her bargain package and i understand the need equities of keeping her in the united states to pay off this restitution and who knows go to the ultimate discretionary spending nation by the agency in that well if you look at the pre sentence investigation report it's also about the beginning of this offense this scheme was in two thousand and eight so well before there was many years before this one wire transaction and again  just have to look at the record evidence in this case to determine whether there's clear and convincing evidence that it's more than ten thousand dollars that we have with you clear or i would say that the total loss is what we're looking for as to what's tethered to the offense and the total loss is clearly reflected in the judgment of conviction in the restitution or the total loss here whether it had been in one day or overall the total loss to the victim in this case was nine hundred fifty four thousand dollars that has never been disputed and it was recognized by this girl in her breeze she's never challenged that the total loss of the victim here nine hundred fifty four thousand dollars and her sense of conviction that that loss is clearly tethered to it because she was ordered to pay back that in the end it was clearly reflected in the district court's judgment and i think that that is clear and convincing evidence as in kaplan as laying where you're looking at more than just the information here you're looking at the record as a whole all the circumstances of this conviction and the restitution order and the judgment or i think the most important piece is to look at w as a matter of discretion and she says that the board failed to consider certain factual findings of the immigration judge that the board's order specifically referenced immigration judge as factual finding including all the positives and then just on the negative conspiracy and that's all true he's responsible by didn't believe it and you found guilty by a jury of conspiracy all the actions of other people too in the conviction of offense and one was making a false report in connection with the commodities trends and his losses were tethered because he moved some numbers around and of course that's what in front of this court he was saying the all you do is move numbers around there's no losses but when the losses by moving those numbers around he overall arching theme of how to commit wire fraud and this was one of the wire fraud at the a t m machine there was this is a woman that's gambling here in their face under pressure he goes to a skate and nash and she's short of