government changed its theory of prosecution after a verdict or a conviction or a jury verdict or a guilty plea in order to include attorneys fees in the la calculation under the guidelines the second issue is can the government get a construction of justice enhanced meant under the guidelines simply by having the defendant repeat his fraudulent story to an investigator where that story is not believed and the investigators do not change the course of their investigation based on that indictment as a starting point for the offense conduct commons is the simplest case because that involved prayer at all kidnapping and by definition there had to be a court order in place as to the custody of the child the defendant took the child to another jurisdiction and therefore broke that relationship if you will with the course of  since the child is moved to another jurisdiction another court gets involved and attorneys fees that flow from that are a natural consequence of that conduct and the court in that case upheld the say in which they attempted to recoup the thirty one thousand five hundred they had paid him there was a consent judgment he agreed to the thirty nine thousand five hundred and each side agreed that they would have  obtain the state of the money the payment of the money that the government that they handed these attorneys things as a consequence of the criminal conduct now they said well as it was mentioned in they tried to justify it by saying well she had a lot of really wasn't interested in the money they were trying to find out where these toy cars i think gone but that's not a theory that's alleged an indictment and the co made the promise to destroy the goods and by the time he received the money he had already committed fraud yes you know he had committed fraud by representing that they were destroy that the cause with the fact but the fraud was not in the formation of the deal with chevron that at the time for all we know when he agreed with chevron that he would destroy the tool toys he intended to do so for all we know that's the case for all we know you and i don't think the government saw all of the fraud that he that is involved in this case is after he had made the agreement right and then he made the misrepresentations to chevron is that the fraud that he's convicted of that is part of the for you as i said to be and and he continued to me the misrepresentations to chevron after he had gotten the money he continued to make those fraudulent representations are false cover up in order to cover up the fact that he failed to destroy them that's fine and gee george they had just such a situation where they lied after the fact and the question was whether or not cars at great expense and that he had somehow dispersed them to the winds and they without harm and therefore they had to file suit one of the find that with its cause was that's a theory that the government came up with after he pleaded guilty to the investigators when he was interviewed created apparently strongly and very or somebody of that but you say that that's not that is not enough to justify obstruction of justice that's correct you are and the reason why i say that is because he was repeating the lie of the four that stuff that is before the investigators ever got involved he had the story told shadwell that he had destroyed them and when they came up with this cause they were out there is all i found out that up barr when it came time to investigate if involved they had the benefit of the chevron investigation they went to him he repeats the same story as a result of that they don't get any new information from they don't believe them and they don't change their investigation they now have to go out and do the investigation they would have done anyway i when you ask them how was the change they said what we had to do this they had to do that they had to do all those things because he had  of the truth not because you know anything he diverted them they already had to do that he did the please the court patrick jasper's with the department of justice from the united states the district courts factual findings were correct and the twenty one month sentence imposed in this case was proper regarding attorneys fees there are two important points i'd like to make first scheme for the fraud which mr lats was convicted explicitly included falsely stating to chevron and chevrons attorneys that he had not destroyed that he had destroyed the toy the scheme to defraud of which mr las was convicted explicitly ran from september two thousand through many two thousand and three and thereby encompass the time period in which chevron incurred the attorneys fees that are now being challenged mr lots should not be allowed now to redefine the crime to which he pled guilty the fraud to which he pled guilty included not only failing to destroy the tri cars and reselling them the fraud to which he pled guilty also included lying to chevron's attorneys about what happened when he pled guilty to the middle east  run i think it's irrelevant to the district court's finding as to whether chevrons attorney's fees were a direct result of the crime charge the crime to which mr lots pled guilty included lying to shove ron's attorneys and the district already agreed that they didn't going to pay their own attorneys fees but with their feet well you're out of chevron decided to stop the civil litigation chevron went into the civil litigation to try to find out what had happened to these doesn't matter i understand that but i was just curious as to whether or not when chevron settled its case it gave up on a thieve shifting arrangement or not is that is the lane strength or weakness to the fact of did not simply fail to assist the investigation he spoke to the investigators for several hours he signed a two page affidavit that was filled with lies that were designed to and did obstruct the investigation investigator testified at the sentencing hearing the defendant opportunity to cross examine him and the district court found that the investigation was obstructed that a factual finding of the investigation was obstruction was obstructed by what then you think before they put those toys out that they have as has someone check them out for danger to children that's always a big