you do ok the rest of the legal sense and the reason to legal center honor is because this court has repeatedly said in for example bustle and anderson which i cited that the amount of the restitution is limited to the victims actual that's the first step and then you figure out what the law says which is what the original loss was minus whatever was returned the only the exception yes ron what what reliable proposition which proposition first return the money because that's the first step listed in the m v already your honor ok you're referring to the statute the store you can see the statute itself is is i don't know how it could be more clear your honor that the first thing that happens shall district court shall order that the victim sprott that the defendant returned the victim's property to the victim the defendant doesn't have the property that would be true in basically every case every single case the government's going to  bank robbery case and everything after a lengthy case the government's going to see the stolen property to use as evidence so it's under the interpretation that if you're getting at the requirement to return the victim and that's why i know now whether whether you're find out to be credited with the return of the money to the bank afterwards is another issue but you're not saying that you're saying that before you can impose a oh my reply i sent this out on page twenty six of my reply and twenty seven that at at sentencing the district court has the order of restitution shall require that such defendant one in the case evan offense involving damaging or lost let damage or loss destruction of property of the victim return the property to the owner or someone does not about the owner or if the property under separate return of the property ownership paragraph a isn't possible or practical an adequate then the defendant pays an amount equal to he says it's never his now it's seized by the government it's evidence they need it at least for a period of time so when does the duty on the part of the government to return it come into play well it's yeah i think the court's confusi car and holds this evidence ok and then the government government says well the race says the defendant has to give you your property back and have it we do we took it from me when we arrested him and so we don't have to get it back so we're going to keep  where you had multiple defendants where that was an issue that this is probably the more common thing where you really can't trace and you can actually say that property belongs to dismiss them that's that's appropriate  if we had my client had multiple co defendants and they were appealing their their their convictions and so on i can understand it took the correct approach or the n p r way would be to say you shall return it when  the peels are done but but that's not what's happened here what's happened here is the district court has told them you have to return if you don't want to know if you decide to it's going to be credit but you can keep it if you want to government and you know when you actually know and there's no dispute here that this is the government's position that they don't intend to keep this in perpetuity they intend to return to the bank and they said so it's all a matter of timing and what the order should say in the first place well and your view is that you can't issue the restitution order for this amount because it should be returned before the order it seems to me is the other way around well the m d o ray says says that the first thing that happens is that is it gets returned and a process of a resolution is calculate and that they want you to affirm the district court's order that says they don't have to do it and in fact they come up with new theories that say that a restitution order against the defendant somehow gives them a lien against the property of the of the victim which is money which was seized is identifiable money traced directly to that particular commingled and that's typical in those kind of case it's we can't separate out and there was no no no no indication that that was even thought of and so me please the court and i mean mars and i represent the united states in this matter there are so many things in this case that we agree upon the only thing i believe well i guess there are two things at this point that we don't agree upon is the government's position that there was a valid appellate waiver here however if we're going to address the merits of the restitution order i think based on your earlier questions it boils down to should be imo harris the final victim bank be included in the restitution order and it's our position that absolutely they should be included in the restitution order to achieve the district court on remand order the government to return the money i don't think it's necessary for that to occur i understand as a practical matter the case is going to be remanded anyway correct because when it's remained the restitution order be amended it could be and i don't think it would be illegal to amend  however it's legal as it's written it is valid as it's written even though it's the no that give the government discretion as your adversary argued to hold on to the money for some unspecified period of time while the restitution remains owing by the defendant i don't think the language as written in the restitution order really does give us that discretion i agree that it is a sort of broadly written and there is that there may be discretion could be implied in the reading about have taken that position of various times yes i think that given different circumstances there are reasons in which the government could keep the money ok but in this circumstance in this circumstance the reason as we've addressed in our supplemental briefing the reason the money has been retained is as evidence in a criminal case pending the resolution of the appeal which as your honor it's stated earlier is common it's common in a case that the government holds on to evidence until the case is resolved  and as that has been stated in our briefing it's never been our intention to keep this money even if we were trying to affect the forfeiture or even if we had affected the forfeiture appropriately it was always the intention to effect the forfeiture and then credit got to the rest actually quote but i referred to the fact that in your supplemental brief page three the government says upon completion of this appeal the government will release the property to the clerk of the court and the funds can properly be applied in the rest touche an order that's absolutely opposite and given that ok that fact since we're going to buy stipulation return this the district court why not incorporated why should we not direct the district court to incorporate this into the restitution order as well since there's no harm no foul at that point the appeal would be done and the problem with that i don't think that's unreasonable it up ok are there any further questions ok thank you i don't think you were all all set then thank you both for your argument we appreciate it nice happy resolution here thank you