please keep track of the separate times that seven and five asked so that we can enforce that thank you please proceed thank you may please the court on behalf of mr  to and make a loan regardless and that's why it's not material but my thought was well maybe they don't pay much attention to him or check them out because they're figuring on the legal sanctions to keep people honest and they don't have to check themselves they can save the money because sat they just trust illegal sanctions just the way the i r s doesn't audit you it trusts you to be honest because it knows you will fear it's power mr carroll this using a false name but it didn't matter to him because he was just looking at the equity in the property the government called him none of the witnesses who related to most of these loans outstanding called secondary client didn't know that these were being passed and there was no evidence that my client colluded with these lenders in passing it out and that was part of my defense as well i challenged the government to show some evidence question the point of my paper question is that if you make any goetia bullets from an and you get money in exchange for it because of that's negotia on that it may be negotiated too well i understand the all the only instruments introduced by the government were history that came about after room resale down the road that doesn't mean that my if there's any understanding interpretation of the indictment the government and its period so it's a position that the defendant argues that there are two objects of the conspiracy one object to commit all four crimes listed in the indictment and accomplished and then proceeds to say as part of the agreement conspiracy and scheme the defendants and others participated and engaged in the following types of fraudulent transactions that severa this allegation paragraph number one represents and if that's the case it is not sufficient to find a conspiracy to commit only one you must find a conspiracy to commit all four if that's the object you are lying now the government argument is a paragraph two is not even an object that the that they were relying on for the jury to find our tradition used for the contrary there were two objects in this particular conspiracy and because of the jury instruction which we scored as his warehouse the jury found him not guilty with regard to other containers which were stored in other places and so what the ninth circuit found was that because of the nature of that particular finding they could even though they rejected the conspiracy camp and reversed on the conspiracy and that is because in the language of the ninth circuit the jury must have concluded that that action the one container in his fraud or mail fraud substances actual mailings or wiring so therefore his liability had to be derivative and therefore choice ninety one of the excerpts the judge states for the record that he doesn't clearly recall what testimony reviewed or what exhibits he examined in connection with the sentence he knows he was concerned about the dates of some of the transactions and he believes the information in the pretrial services report fully documents all the court's findings with respect to conduct that he found relevant now why shouldn't i read that to me that you don't really have a claim based on the judge taking his relevant conduct from the trial because here he says look i can't even remember exactly what i realise what i reviewed from the trial even though i was there for the whole whole trial but what i do know is that everything that i'm relying on for this sentence and it's relevant conduct determination is in the process report and obviously you have noticed an opportunity to be heard on the pre sentence report and you were heard you could have put on testimony contradicting the pre sentence report if you wanted to or other evidence contradicting in the breeze and the actual trial exhibits i know she went back and forth but why does the fifth statement of page ninety one mean at the end of the day she goes shall we say or rather than my review sure they always are multi defending cases it's wrong but i don't see where that helps any you can still say if you want to put on a case that sentencing to show that a certain aspect of the relevant conduct are wrong a sentence perhaps if there was an evidentiary hearing it may have been cleared up i was looking at your brief because i was thinking that's really good argument that and you've got to get an evidentiary hearing so that you let me tell you what picture i have and what concern i have see can address at jackson says i'm guilty of the crimes i'm pleading guilty to but i am not guilty of all the relevant conduct as that's described in the pre sentence report the trial has started but it has not concluded the pre sentence report writer says that he's relying on testimony a which may or may not be a poor use of words and the judge treats refers to testimony which also may or may not be a good choice of words we don't know in any event the fact remains there's a dispute about what relevant conduct can be fairly attached to jackson jackson says i want an evidentiary hearing so i can argue about and present evidence on the relevant the judge says no you can't have one why isn't that an abuse of discretion the judge has has discretion so we review for abuse of discretion on granting an evidentiary hearing it your honor if you have a child she says she basically says before that you know i know that there's lots of common sense would indicate that you're involved however i'm not going to i'm not going to find on the on these ones where you say she had messing about the notice issue i was saying suppose a person has full and fair notice that the judge is about to punish her for something she didn't do isn't she then entitle to be heard in a way that's adequate to the circumstances and make good evidence that that's what she was going to do because she had been something to her i think that that would have been that would have been permitted by the district court but i think the main problem was with that all she was arguing with cross examination not even what it w eleven in particular which is the conspiracy had an instruction what might otherwise might otherwise be a little bit of a ninety indictment however it is clear not only from the instruction itself but the as you say the conspiracy are but also from the the district court make it clear what she's relying on well it may be as it may be your honor however i do i do want to point out that you can't it's only been seven properties and and it's only these seven properties and only three of them we've been