our fourth case for today's united states against edward  ran a car he was sentenced to four years in prison for wire fraud and thanks for the government brought a lot of allegations against him it was complicated but if you get down below just the allegations you'll see that there are some gaps in the case that says that the victim has to come in and testify that i didn't i was unable to find any case dealing those forces that were true there would never be a murder for the murder prints somewhat different because they they can this area and he was a qualified expert to testify he told the jury and they were free to take it or leave it based upon all of the evidence and the witness himself and his testimony but he testified that the check kiting scheme resulted in the temporary loss to each financial institution and a loss of sixty thousand dollars for if an actual loss for a few days however i believe in having any kind of actual loss does not necessarily was able to communicate this was not allowed that this was a fraud it's not up to the bank to tell the district court with the law it's whether it's allowed or not the expert describes what happened the district judge makes a decision about whether that's fission under the law to go show that the bank there wasn't permission this wouldn't be illegal at the bank allowed people to write in that's just preposterous what was going on here these amounts of money and the timing of the checks if there's more than just a with the other issues somewhat related to that was that they would use the expert with the bank fraud is using the expert witness mr brink at who also worked at the upstate which was one of the lenders and he was allowed to testify a but why isn't that expert testimony that is it is an expert but it's also somewhat fact testimony how was it to be somewhat a fact testimony basing that on his own personal knowledge at the time and dealing with that company didn't erived from experience in an industry as opposed to you know what feel that you get your ph d and mean when you have come hotelier type you know the experience will experts naturally they're going to apply the factual experience they have an industry when they talk about industry practices essentially saying you know in this industry they don't like you to sell the same car twice which you know or at least have the title out there using same car twice as security without disclosing to the second lender that they actually are in a pretty unsecured i think with this situation but he also worked he's not just an expert coming in and saying this is what is and they wouldn't find it material to know that that car is already been pledged to somebody else so they're second in line and their security interest is worth exactly zero with the lender so they have a security interest in everything everything cases in the circuit for a violation of twelve he wasn't raised in the district court this army was and waiver was found so how could we reach the at all for the for the duplicity issue with the more it comes in through the jury instructions yes but for the rule says you have to be raised to block or trial and can't be raised later in the next with the exception of good cause you or you can show that there was good cause for not raising the before trial but as i read your brief you don't say it was raised before trial and you don't argue that there was good cause for not racing before a trial that combination looks not raised below ok and not just a court found waiver on that duplicity you're trying to argue that you raised that through your proposed dependency jury instruction and unanimity yesterday but you didn't argue dupl in which to analyze all of the evidence that it was receiving in terms of polio his behavior and why they would not engage in it and he never worked for any other company like he had worked for several other companies this was the first floor plan under that he worked at so what he knows about day of c comes from his working today as well he just about it's broader than that he keeps up on journals he keeps in touch with with competitors there are a lot of ways people in this industry interact with other people in the industry  been lost but of course polio knows that the toilets with the first lender so he's actually lying in that application and when the secretary of state gets these i believe misspellings testimony was that they process about thirteen thousand applications a day at the secretary of state and that they do not investigate the legitimacy of each application document as long as the boxes are checked the fee is paid and it appears on its face and they don't have parent lady any system of tracking me on its face very clearly alleges a single seeing with seventeen different meanings for the case in the circuit the consistent and clear that the government does not need to prove unanimity with respect to any from the floor plan creditors so there are any other questions for me the conviction