judge panel that basically says because it didn't the aggregate that they vacated emory managed for the court to do that that's right your honor but if i was just advocating initial abuse from the  trafficking in the images and i understand from your brief you're trying to draw the line at a different spot and parentline seems to be contrary to that apparently as you look at the general you have to disaggregate it doesn't say that but i think on correctly interpret it is a you have to just aggregate between the initial abuse and the trafficking in images and then it said the trafficking in images all of the losses associated with add our general losses and then the district court's obligation is to determine an individual defendant's appropriate portion of the general losses using that term general loss so i don't see so apparently it seems to be contrary to your argument that you have to look only at general losses after the date that the defendant first trafficked in the images i didn't see that at all there elaine but i think they would but apparently courts as in this special context we use a different approach and the approach is if you look at all of the general asa sort of like of an old environmental lawyer so i understand circle a liability you look at all of the losses the whole pool of contaminated stuff and then the district court uses some basis or apportioning among all of the perpetrators and then the supreme court gives a list of what those factors for a factors might be but says the district court can do it but here i think at the end of the day the touchstone under per line is what lost the defendant could approximately cause so to say that's not what the court says i mean that was that's the reason the district court threw up its hands probably special circumstance in a special context and it gives a different a a different test it's impossible to trace a particular those losses to the individual defendant so the it's just this is probably almost an impossible process but it says it can be done but here you've got eight thousand for some the the victims that had many more images and then was only one thousand so that would indicate to me on some level that the district court and sponge bob it's in my saying that i think it's been the case the spanish yeah well but that was a thousand and there were far less oh andy sponged be i'm sorry for let's see but with the defendants had been found to to possess images of before had been ordered to pay restitution in the amounts written from a thousand to twelve hundred and massa possessed two images of andy andy sponged b and then but regarding amy there were seventy three images so regarding cindy there were ninety one and regarding angela there were eighty five so clearly fund b was one thousand the others were eight thousand so there is some apportionment that's going on there well there's so many i don't know how you could get an exact number apparently and says it can be done and give some guidelines and there are certain things that the court does the court goes through and says how many images what you know what each of the victims pledges to be their damages how much they've collected and i mean the best is maybe i don't know i can't tell the eight thousand what's different between the eight thousand but clearly just on its face there's a lot less images of spunge be that's very sort of like jump i think to the first issue the lack of explanation is you i think the problem is we have a series of foundational factual findings and we have this eight thousand number and we don't have the courts reasoning for how those foundational factual findings led it to the bottom and though there is a little bit there it says what was the overall loss you know what did the people allege that their damages were and how much they have collected so there is something that goes on it just doesn't seem that there can ever be a perfect you know it's it's not it's this is not ever going to be easy that paralleling says it can't be done sure but then today we need to know what the district court thought was important number of images to be quite important but the same time he didn't address the fact that there were duplicate images and if i could take sort of an i think he's on a like an award for for emotional distress things are argued to the jury and somehow the jury comes back with a response has been termed a holistic approach and i'm not sure that anybody is capable of doing anything more than that but this particular question so i guess i disagree and we provided some examples in our brief of this record you had sort of provided i think that missing  think that the image is this i think not a super helpful factor here because the duble kids but but setting that aside at the end of the day if we're attempting in some very rough reasonable way with a judge but you know if there were you know i mean eighty five seems worse than two or whatever sure but if it didn't they were attempting to terminate my clients they lost the proximately cause even sort of in a rough way it doesn't make sense to me that if one victim was harm you know three hundred thousand dollars worth it based on this poll of potential viewers and someone else is hardly nine million dollars how my plan could possibly cause the same amount of loss if you just look at angela for instance she's the one who had a total loss germination of three hundred thousand the district court also found that map with some numbers that were like dollars and cents that were what we ended up doing is following the six or could approach and taking the total loss figure and dividing it by a thousand well how that more how's that better judgment so for instance with with angela for instance her total loss figure was three hundred thousand the district court also found that five hundred defendants had been found to possess her  think sort of a rough way to do this would be say look three thousand dollars divided by five hundred defendants means each defendant had to pay about six hundred dollars towards a loss now you might say my clients was more aggravated or less aggravated but i don't see how you can get from six hundred dollars to eight thousand dollars based on this record good morning your honor may it please the court helen hall on behalf of the united states the district court did not abuse its discretion and by following the mandate that the supreme court had set out in parallel and which is so proximate the damages that mr massey caused to the victims factors if it wasn't dollars so just tell me what the line is from the factors for each of the victims and the thousand dollars how was that determined your own of the defense or that the district court determined that eight thousand dollars represented the defendant  the district court didn't explain based on the inputs why a thousand dollars comported with the defendant's relative role so what is the explanation can you provide your honor it's implicit in the factors that the district court identified identification of an amount per and even then wouldn't it differ amongst the victims because even though it was a small number eighty five ninety one seventy three it was different number they were different numbers your honor but looking at the district court in it discretion and looked at the totality of circumstances and determine what the defendant's relative role was so you can't how do you get eight thousand yes no way to get that you can't even come up with any way that you get an eight thousand number and that's when the supreme court's guidance makes it see that what the district court did here is precisely what the supreme court majority invision what justice roberts said in his dissent was any number is going to seem arbitrary if you don't have a mathematical formula and what the majority has told us and what this  requirements require is that no no mathematical formula is going to get it in their back to my environmental law when you have a superfund site you have multiple perpetrators of the district courts as well a look at how nasty was the stuff you released how long were you dumping at that site what was the quantity of what you released and then they come up with something here that's what the supreme court seems to be saying look at these factors and then come up with some way to fairly apportion the correct amount eight thousand dollars just for each victim sounds more like the penalty they just it's easy a rule of thumb i'll just do a thousand always perfect how can we get around that that that's not what the supreme court told the district courts to do had the district court simply said that eight thousand dollars was reasonable as the defendant and the district court as the district court had done in kennedy for dollars so he didn't tether it he just he went through the factors but then didn't have any tether between the factors and the amount he ultimately tother it to go to the test that paralyzing requires which is is this an amount that is that comports with the approximately the same what he called the significant number the number that sponge b was depicted in with just two what they wouldn't have been better if you'd said something like ok angela had more images and also had to maybe she had to do more counseling so what affected her worse than someone else and then we look ok and then sponge be there were less and he didn't have to do as much counseling or and looking at how much had been collected so then maybe a thousand for her and one thousand four sponge b but then you go look at amy and ok the images are similar but the other numbers aren't similar so i mean maybe if he had said seven thousand for one and six thousand for another something that it just looks like there was an eight thousand on a bull's eye and was throwing ok i hit eight thousand there and when you look in read the victim impact statements from angela cindy and amy however the harm that each of them experienced is quite similar in the district court obviously read through all of the sealed materials you read through five different supplemental finally their request is total losses because this is supposed to be a portion of loss the number of defendants who have already been past criminal defendants the amount of restitution they've already received was totally different that's true your honor so amy misty was the district court said over a billion dollars and one hundred ninety two defendants were ordered to pay thirteen million dollars total so doesn't that mean that there should be no apportionment to the defendant parallel required in its judgment and discretion is paralleling required determined that there were varying amounts that should be awarded to the four different victims that were depicted in the images and i think perhaps the context of the defendant's own submissions weighed in favor of the district court really adhering to and electional honesty here i mean courts can sort of paper over the explanation requirement by picking a number like one thousand as a divisor but there's really no rational or reasoned basis for picking one causes the general losses it discusses the victims general lost it's in the trade in her images in apportioning the defendant's relative role in that you would have to consider the full general loss that the defendant suffered as a result of that one phenomenon of the longwood requires a desegregation of the injuries or losses associated with the initial abuse from the losses associated with the trafficking her images mr massa is part of a little bit of an unrelated question are any of these victims ever actually getting any money i don't believe that they're collecting much your honor my understanding is that there are some defendants i am aware of some defendants that have paid and paid their restitution when they have the means to do so in this case i don't know if mr massa has the means obviously that's not something considered under twenty two fifty nine amy's submission from the attorney suggests that she has not and i'll just note the twenty to fifty nine precludes consideration of awards that were obtained from other sources or insurance in determining the restitution that should be ordered but the district court here attempted to it here and did it here to what para line requires the court did not know about the law to the extent that the law requires separation out of the initial abuse and injury do we have a problem here that the district court did know that she didn't try to do that angela there's no aggregation mark argument that has been raised at all for cindy it was an aggregation related to the time at which mr massa started to possess cindy's images which is two thousand and twelve that was not until long happened after the br and his twenty eight day letter is not what the law on requires and that's precisely the point recruited that you raised at the beginning which is a desegregation of the losses that are associated with the initial abuse from the ongoing losses that are associated with the various victims but they can't seem to find that citation but i think it's when they offered up how many defendants had been ordered to pay restitution regarding the the lock up to the nation i think my best sort of authority there is this kennedy involved amy one of the victims here and the district court in kennedy made some plenary foundational findings like you did here in that case it found a total loss figure of confusion see how much but it was based on the same documentation provided in this case and then the district court in that case also made a finding about how many defendants had put previously possessed images of the victim and then said a thousand dollars was quote a reasonable figure without sort of explaining how it got from those foundational findings to its conclusion in this court said picking this reasonable number simply wasn't sufficient it needs to explain its reasoning and that's what i'm asking in the district court to do here and