response to the government's cross appeal whether or not the trial court decision that you can't force to something that doesn't exist should be reverse to the first issue let me just start by emphasizing that this is an unusual case in that there are  that the trial court ordered him to forfeit something that didn't exist the trial court refused to order your editor of a non existant amount of money and our position of getting to the heart of the matter didn't mr casey may have to the sale of one thousand tablets when he through counsel agreed with the proffer made in open court going to increase maximum penalty or an explicit admission that amounts to a waiver of that jury trial and why don't we have it here because a waive her requires an acknowledgement in to negotiate blakeley this is an unusual situation not likely to repeat itself but when because mr casey pled pre buy likely then when blakely came down and the probation office looked at the issue about whether or not he made an admission because he certainly didn't have a jury trial on it the probation office concluded and in fact he did not the probation office looked at this colloquy and found ins admission and a consideration of other extraneous material the trial court itself initially made the correct conclusion that it wasn't sufficient and i want to call the court's attention to the very specific long before the court had any idea that there would be blakeley concerns if it was not intended to a list of the kinds of admissions that the government serves were in fact i cannot say that the defendant made any explicit admission and the defendant never authorized me to make such a finding or to draw that conclusion by the jury or explicitly being asked to consider that point the trial judge was right on the money now the subsequent shift in part i think is explained by the dramatic shift in the landscape we went through in this case we went through argument about whether or not a sentencing hearing should be in peril the court ultimately determined it should not because of jeopardy that mr case you have flat in jeopardy it nevertheless requires an explicit admission or the defendant's assent to judicial fact line so even one hundred shapard this was not sufficient to constitute an admission  primary problem with sheppard and with likely is that we conduct this search this this this searching inquiry into extraneous matters like police reports like notes that were not involved i do process argument it really was a different issue and it does not control it dresses just like in texas versus car if there is a differen concept that has been up lying to the federal sentencing guidelines no one versus florida was the original case involving a florida sentencing guidelines scheme and the supreme court said absolutely the guidelines this is a it's a it's a situation that has never occurred or what happened in booker is just a novel to to to understate it it is a circumstance of all that can be looked at as a legislative change in a fact what justice pryor did in the remedial opinion was to look out what congress intent legislature intended to read into the statute so it is an ex post facto argument based on legislative action and it is it is an issue of first impression it has not been will the question here is whether or not the government can seek forfeiture out seven thousand dollars that was nonexistent this is not seven thousand dollars that was in a bank account  but we can't read words into it we can't read meaning of words into a statute that does not exist and not just just as an aside this court and repin ski actually  in subsection b as being real property it's lying and or it is a tangible or intangible personal a piece of personal property that includes rights privileges interests claims and securit property that presently exists that is substitute property that you can put your hands on there is no provision in eight fifty three for a money judgment that doesn't relate to som definition of property because we simply what we want to have a judgment against a client in perpetuity so what the government is doing here is confusing the notion of after discovered property defendant under these circumstances just to get rid of the cash or whatever whatever it was that is the subject of forfeiture but those defendants who get rid of cash have to do it somewhere and rule thirty two to specifically provides a mechanism to address your concern it provides that on the government's motion this is thirty two subsection on the government's motion the collection of that judgment congress anticipated that drug dealers which spend their profits that they would hide assets and the framework of the statute provides for the collection of the proceeds  the congressional language in the statute itself is plain and unambiguous in this regard it contemplated that the government would need to find those assets that the drug dealers had hidden were dispersed and as the court pointed out these i think that the court in its recent decision in united states versus conducted in a review of how the statute operates then in several cases three cases that i've noted in the  have used the term money judgment but certainly recognize the validity of imposing a judgment and then looking to satisfied at a later time the third reason that the court erred in failing to impose a criminal forfeit your judgment is that the district based upon whether or not some of them had spent their money on wine women or song varied gold bars in the basement or safe that so the government can find it there is no rational basis not to impose the amount of the proceeds that were earned by the defendants to the court can determine and in this case there was no dispute the defendant received the seven thousand dollars for the drugs that he spent the government's money attached only defend both the authority and the obligation to impose criminal forfeiture proceeds in the defendant's sentence and should direct this the district court to enter an order for future in the amount of seven thousand dollars in proceeds from the defendant's drug crime that the case is really don't discuss this issue of the propriety of a much of a monetary judgment for the most part because defendants don't raise the issue there seems to be the only one that i really came across about why these money judgments may not be authorized and in fact it wasn't the defendant in that case who raised the issue of whether or not a money judgment could be