give me that side you thirty four c f r section three ninety five point thirty two or case ga and pr well it means that there are sealing supply subject to certain exceptions one of the exceptions is thirty two j and that we're doing away with the cap or is the permit to rely on simply used one hundred percent language i don't believe that it first happens self ok well then permit simply track what the expectation is yeah that's one hundred percent but we've got this other federal regulation over here that says well yeah but if it exceeds what would be a fair profit from some perspective then there's a cap on it and the rest of it goes back into a fund that helps other individuals that might be in your situation or provides programming for all parity individuals jalen judges  your client a good deal which maybe he deserved for whatever reason or is it that the feds were not careful enough with the pervy if they first a paragraph in the decision which appears at page eight forty nine eight forty nine of the appendix and then separately the permit that appears at page a sixty eight i think let's just take those one of the time and they can become very clear but there's even if this panel were to find that the rate even policy will come back to that did not violate the act there is another basis for ruling in favor of the complaint complaint and in this case the permits between the parties clearly mandate that the income sharing for all vending machines in the cafeteria is out one hundred percent what's critical here is that the court was addressing what was called the break even policy position with us postal service had advocated for in the arbitration hearing break even policy sensually a way for the postal service to argue not that it didn't have to share in but that there was no income to share because the postal service was entitled to recoup its overhead  for dispersing profits through three ninety five point three two it has nothing to do with recognizing an exception to the income ceiling in three ninety five point three two context of the language cheers brit inside this morning is the public as you can see and i think as the four discussed there is nothing in this poem which specifically mentions three ninety five point three two three nine five point  or anything about the encompassing now allegedly there is an attachment that that would be attach it was not interviews from the trial record below it's not in it's not in the record here at least i certainly haven't seen so or if the pla argument comes down to what is in this attachment that you would think that the plaintiff would have introduced it into the record at some point the fact that it's not here prevented precludes plaintiff from a line and what i think when you so when you take away this idea that there was an arrangement or to this overarching rule i think what we're left with is the plaintiff's theory here which is i think more spelled out in his briefs than an argument here today which is the very idea of a cap in a direct competition case that is antithetical to the aims and goals at the heart of the stacks and that's simply incorrect benefits for all participants in the program or for the plaintiffs pocket and i think it's very clear that no matter how many times the plaintiff repeats the phrase one hundred percent one hundred percent one hundred percent doesn't repair the fact but there are words in the regulation after the after the phrase one hundred percent and they say provided that the amount of income sharing does not exceed a maximum and there is simply no way