morning good morning oh happy day oh happy day how wonderful to hear your voice do you hear my little forward earlier about the fact that there will probably be a time when we're speaking over each other yeah and oh you did that's wonderful the present health considerations that motivate anybody's interest in going back sentencing and trying to get the sentence reduced those are all things that are at play in this part of the sentencing package i believe that the score more than ever that's the size it's discretion collateral previously received so what the rover court dealing with as i said before is a distinctly different situation here where the where the victim sold the property for a lesser value  much restitution that the value of the property still held by the bank will become relevant so i actually think that mr khan is extraordinary person who if you organized salesman i actually think this matters a lot and this is why frankly i was hired not to address this three years in prison but to address whether or not he's ever going to be able to be in a position to raises children to try actually to entitle him to by itself is not enough to entitle him to the acceptance credit in a district court properly considered mr goldman statements regarding  relevant conduct regarding his role in the offense regarding what he did and what others did in the offense and found that mr goldman had not accepted responsibility in fact the district court  made extensive findings regarding women's lack of acceptance and those findings included a finding that government had falsely denied recruiting others to take out fraudulent loans scheme and the court properly found that this is not credible the court i mean glommed also went so far as to blame the bank for its role in this fraud scheme when after one of  founders and member of the board of directors mr forsyth sent accused him of profiting from the from the loss involved with these properties this is not even a close issue that  later at sentencing two men attempted to say well i've abandoned them they're not worth they're not worth anything anymore i don't have a thing to do with them and the court simply did not credit that that on its own would participant in a fraud scheme that had been i guess originated by the bank and involve other people but the two women it was although i think they said the words of major player everything that was involved with their the district court erred in sensing mr gorman to three years supervised release on the tax count there was only one year was allowed authorised by the statute so that's an error that it's supervised release i well i don't i think it would only come into play in the nd or rd year of his supervisor lease after the authorized term of one year on the tax how it had expired authorised tax count to be a violation you know supervised release violation if you follow me that there would have to be a compounding of the error by the district court on a supervised release violation  comparable mr goldman's liberty as a result of this error and i think that's on a like it's abundantly clear that the judge intended a maximum term of three years to write your lease on both counts to run concurrently and nothing in the record would indicate that anything else depends upon the nd in thirty years of supervised release for this tax count so i think the court you know if you wish you could just correct hunt paid low con had borrowed money for the scheme involved borrowing money not gas stations and when the  and the others returned some money but as to these particular properties they return the property and not the proceeds of the loan that does not count as restitution as rovers  kind is not entitled to credit for the return of those past the return of the collateral until those can stations or other properties sell i don't think this amounts to a windfall for the bank the bank is not in the in the business of running gas stations and convenience stores d the bank would like to sell the properties the christian court found that the bank had been trying to sell the properties but was unable to do so in the event or when when  the bank does sell the properties to money con and anybody else should get credit on restitution for that cash that is realized on the sale of the property the dish a court to requires them to modify your office or the court when those properties are sold i mean i don't know your honor i don't i'm not involved in collecting financial things like restitution are fine just things like that but i do know from reading the cases that there are procedures the vailable in post sale of the properties by the bank i think at that point he could under the statute go to court and i like i said a post judgment petition  said topic of discussion and i believe it was in dawson as well and we're certainly not opposed to him getting credit and he ought to get credit and there are procedures available under the statute and  for him getting credit so i think the court properly understood rover's not to give him not to allow for him to get credit up front but rather as things proceed when and if the bank sell the property on the issue of his financial means i think mr khan is mistaken about the court's ability to take into account his financial resources when awarding restitution or determining the restitution amount that is precluded by the statute the court is allowed to consider his financial means when setting a restitution schedule payment schedule and the court did that here the court waived interest that's reflected in the judgment there's a fox on the judgment order the check says the interest is waived and  said specify that no restitution payments were due while mr kaiser incarcerated but that upon supervised release his beginning of his term survives release he would have to pay ten percent of his net monthly income that appropriately takes into account mr kinds let me financial circumstances his need to care for his family and pay for his own living expenses and and yet also