support the subset of and conspiracy charges for which mr hope had been convicted in this case suggest as we set forth in the brief that as to the substantive charges mr hill's alleged conduct forth e mails meetings testimony which we have to credit at this stage of the proceeding about pay those no you pay those who are you paying the more so forth and so on and i would suggest  are based on that evidence there is certainly sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find that he had knowledge of the conspiracy but there is not a there was not a witness who testified that mr hill paid them any kickbacks would mean aeration to go see a doctor he certainly i was very persuasive in getting people to go there were people who were part of the alleged team crane who certainly did make payments including mr miller who testified but even mr miller did not testify to government has to argue is a jury recently could have inferred they do and a reasonable jury reasonably could have inferred that well i respectfully disagree your honor and the reason being is because with regards to those two payments that were made for the that it was after that matter was this it to the clinic and getting obtaining the grant which was part and parcel of the entire conspiracy which the jury had heard all the evidence about the meeting of the minds about that they had and again your honor i would i would certainly suggest the jury could found knowledge i could have found that mr hill was involved in obviously recruiting patients to the clinics but i mean i would suggest that based on the evidence presented that it was not reason for them to find either that the payments to to bloom and they were inducements or that he ever willfully joined in the actual illegal manner payments you're arguing that he has an explanation for why he paid for travel but again and it comes back to the issue of what could a jury have reasonably infer correct and i would suggest based on the testimony was not reasonable for them to infer that mr hill was actually making the payment doesn't another issue that i feel compelled to address given the time that i have is the calculation of the guidelines in this particular case and i think your brief is pretty clear on that and i think you've probably got a winning argument not understand that the government pretty much agreed with you on that well why don't you do this why don't you save your time and i mean save it will add it if you need it on that issue and if the government pushes back on our questions about that issue we'll let you respond in full about it thank you i'll be glad to do that and may i before i take a seat and i have just one case in regards to that that i would that i came across last night that i had not cited which is a united states person area were in the midst of briefing i think it's somewhat relevant to the dots calculation ok thank you thank you under the guidelines that is correct and that is why we are not opposing a re manned we believe that there was a problem here with the guidelines interpretation there are two major issues for sentencing which is the interpretation of to be four point one and then relevant conduct because there was a problem with the interpretation issue right off the bat the relevant conduct actual findings have not been made and we don't think that we can get to what the court did with the findings and the admitted facts in the p s i i so that is why we are not opposing or not it should government's position is vacating remand on the sentence but leave open the relevant conduct issue as well as correcting the net profit issue yes your honor that is our position we would like to be able to present the correct evidence and find and support the factual findings that the court needs to make but we would like to start with a clear understanding of the fact that this is an improper benefit conferred and not a loss und the relevant law debater we also gave the court under twenty eight j the two published decisions that we think bear on the issue and again we're coming down to the decision to be a four point one versus to be a one point one i'd also like to point out here on ars because any remain and may affect of course other other cases other compound in cream cases other conspiracy cases that we have here a rather unique factual situation  originally charged the defendant as part of a conspiracy with centurion creams and the pharmacy we originally charged a conspiracy to both receive and pay kickbacks but we then narrowed that in the superseding indictment and we specifically charge only payment from the defendant that causes us a problem at sentencing under relevant conduct and that's also why we would like to go back and  think she r j agrees with you on the senate thing issue but if you'd like to say some about whether relevant conduct ought to be left open district court really didn't address that i agree your honor and i  don't and the only argument i was going to make was to propose what perhaps the net benefit calculation might be when the case is remanded but i may be putting the cart before the horse guards that i do agree with the government it's on the record we have it's essentially impossible to determine what the net benefit would have been at this stage without the case me or manda back to the district court ok all right thank you we'll take that case under submission