all right our final case for this morning is united states against sundown off mr walk put it in more certain terms say we have a serial killer and say we have three murders and say we have concrete evidence tying that serial murderer to those three two but those three murder the government could prosecute but say also we have an incredible witness in this incredible witness has a relationship with the serial murderer in haiti for whatever reason is incredible everything is subject to question of veracity and he purports to suggest unless that these serial killer is also responsible for something other than homicides well there are seven murders and he is a serial killer yet no government in our cruel justice system would committed some other crime i absolutely agree i just don't think that that would rise to the preponderance of evidence that the system would impute that high of liability well but you know you're certain you're getting around to the fact that you don't stellar citizen which i sure individual and it's not i'll go with you there but that's quite common and there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that was before the district court judge that individual a account of millions of dollars over a very long period of time ten years seven years just married a long time was this being used and the district court looks at this and and says you know i think you're reliable enough to read to base a sentence first to the total intended loss the greater than three point five million and then she discounts back you know the two point eight very low acquisition cost if you're just stuffing them in the sure in those skirt linings you know so the two point eight may be closer to the final number than we might see in some other instances so so i don't know where her legal areas and her legal error is she says she says to mating she says i not required to you know back up each american girl doll to each sale on lego set she's not required to do that so so i don't know where under the rules that apply is sentencing there's something reversible here well you know when i do what i would suggest is that you look at the whole calculation and individual a makes it representation that ninety to ninety five percent of the merchandise he receives is from mr bowdoin so she goes down to the ninety percent see why the judge isn't entitled to take that gaping i think of that salinger of effort into account i agree with that as well but individual so what so what's wrong with the judge saying well we have individual a here saying that you know they were a font of of of inventory and no evidence in the record so much as a single toys r us or barnes and noble or actually you know i you know for some reason was buying all of this stuff and here are my receipts and here is my cost of doing business and things like that here just  there i would argue that there is some evidence that is in the record that certainly supports the theft and supports that he was involved in that he even admits it in the pl now that there is a problem in the forfeiture of two point eight million which was i gather the amount that the district judge concluded that individual a receipt did the district judge ever estimate how much began of received well the big no the district judge only ruled that two point eight million dollars based on the evidence proffered at the event your minorites not it when you got conspiracy and the personal take for the defendant is a question before the supreme court right now and honey cut which was argued last month and is now under advisement so far as i can see there's no honey although the presumption in the position of the last amount in the government is that this is attributable attributable to mr about danica's mr badon of that individual a didn't get ninety five percent that requires veracity nonetheless he's never ever stated that it was stop nonetheless you have the financial records here and you have just missing product here but you have never connected the missing product with mr public done of her say you've connected the missing product to the financial records of which they have looked at with mr  proffered corroborating evidence that things goods were obtained legally but welcome and i don't see any evidence that was offered lowell by the defendant that they were was there and it was indicative in the record of the evidence collected what judge easterbrook was alluding to about how we got to the lower forfeiture number recognizing is obviously you know that the total loss for sentencing guidelines purposes is a different number so the two point eight million roughly represents the total amount of goods that were so all the accounts that's the district judges estimate of how much individual a got by selling essential well i think we would take the position i don't obviously know how the court's going to come out the issue is not raised in the district court no i think that's what i understand that issue was not raised and of course i understand that your your not two point eight million usually defense gets at least fifty percent often more when you take on this much more i don't know what individual ways particular cup was your honor i guess i would argue that he individual way made a profit and that means that bargain all got less than two point eight million he certainly did judge i would not dispute that right that's what the three point five come in is if the government's theory that it's the difference between three point five and two point eight no i respect that that's the solicitor general's argument in honeycutt but obviously the fact that the supreme court has granted search or already have honey cuts request suggests that they may not be entirely persuaded i respect that your honor and that calculation was not done and not to be a divorce issue was not raised and so is it at all meaningful that this thing is called a preliminary forfeiture order of two point eight million run so we did not seek to a final order until the appeal is over so things can still happen obviously your honor ok with regard to the dollar amount itself i would just add to what  what's already been stated the defendant did not dispute below the actual numerical calculation of three point seven million a two point eight million how much individual a guy presented to the district judge was whether the crits were stolen and frankly all the evidence in iraq or points in that direction is your honor recognize the question is what's more likely than not right that's the standard that supported by nothing in fact he was using a fake name when he was dealing with the c i when he was stopped by police officers in mississippi he told he told them he got the goods from a flea market in another story  supporting himself his wife who did not work at all and then there as tax information the several years with the tax returns which were provided to the peroration officer which was entirely consistent with somebody who had to be making a sizable amount of money he was could be buying these goods legitimately and then selling them to this guy so i would submit your honor that the the district court made the the the correct didn't do that because they didn't exist she gave parties ample opportunity to argue the issues i she correctly applied the law to the facts i don't think there's a dispute about that and she made up basically allowing him like your honor the biggest asset of all is the home which is valued at roughly one point seven million there is a small mortgage on it that's going to be seized if the judgment is upheld by the cars  there probably the value is in the p s r i don't have those numbers in front of me but there when you're talking about seizing a car and selling it often times it's more trouble than it's worth in terms of auction in cars you're now looking at a blue