here's the point that i'm making is that if the court had understood that they had recognized the legal issue it's not just a matter of saying ok well i'm going to pay to three different counts instead of the three counts that i chose because the whole context for her decision then would have been different instead of seventy to six hundred fifty seven months now at seventy to one hundred twenty nine months and so one hundred twenty six months that she actually imposed now is just three months short of the maximum but that's not dispositive of the prejudice question prejudice question is simply is there a reasonable probability that if he issued been raised that that a lot of severe sentence might have been imposed and he and he or she had shared good reasons to that's fundamental to the case and counsel fails to perform basic research on that point and so and so what happened here is that the overwhelming weight of the sentencing exposure that he faced over ninety percent of that the and that's all that we need to ask for i do think that the court i think it's clear could conclude the legislative history might not be included the first time around in my twenty four c but because they adopted it against the rules when he is put securely appropriate in that case for two reasons and the first reason was because we've got a statute that imposes mandatory consecutive sentences and obviously that that applies just the same in this case you have a that twenty four so you know this is an issue of first impression is  different in my statute or for some other reason and any reason the counsel who was aware of the ads what have made an objection on that basis there wasn't any there wasn't any downside to making that objection there wasn't any west going there was an extraordinary b as hell and each execution of a bank fraud is separate and similarly each execution of identity fraud is separate and that's an especially compelling point in the context of identity for because the purpose of this statute is not to statute we prosecuted what happened but the statute is aimed at crimes against individuals and a particularly nasty crime involving identity theft that has witnesses told this district court has a profound effect so that's what's in our mind is that this does charge an individual use of a person's store and identity and that's why it was crimes either that way and we believe that that's a correct interpretation of ten twenty eight this is different from my twenty  and i think it's incumbent on the court to carefully look at that when you look at the statute you know we've acknowledged if you look at the legislative history here but the congressmen and women did not address this specific issue but good have to charge the predicate right but you have to show that it was in relation to a bank fraud that would be one of the elements and the court really struck down that so you're right the first two years is mandatory one of the counts but then after that you can have imagine what you do with your comment the effect he had on his codefendant this young woman who he corrupted him and brought into this criminal case and when she did all that she actually never mentioned she calculated the rage i think she didn't mention  the first point i make is is that the district court decided this case purely on the basis of the underlying legal issue through no discussion of the district court's ruling deficient performance or prejudiced and you are one decide to get a record on the council's reasons factual reasons why for not objecting and to look at the arguments that the government has made and that we've made with respect to prejudice and if that decision are you asking us to decide t opinion is simply said for a reason set forth in the government's response yes but i think the real issue is that that government response only looked at the at the underlying the double jeopardy issue and didn't grapple with any of this sort of arguments that the government is making here now but the structure is different here but it's the same kind of harshness and this case illustrates you've got the entire fraud the entire bank fraud with all the banks and all the costumers adding up to four or five years of there isn't a difference you sentences are rising from the same predicate i don't think that that that that helps answer that question it's a difference but it's not a difference to try with the ambiguity and you get the same question to see because you can end up with under the government's interpretation you can end up with with third rate bank fraudsters who are being sentenced as if they were international terrorists you know because they had because they're writing checks for twenty five have sort of out of control provider proliferation of crime and this compressing of the predicate crime and the identity theft the point that the sponsor was making is under the existing law there was no incentive to even charge identity theft because because it just ended up getting getting compressed in his words interview original sentence and so the purpose was simply to try and create incentive to charge it in the first place and he said what we're trying to do here is there may be twenty five checks here instead of one but we're not trying to we're not trying to raise this guy's sentence from five years to fifty five years but we're trying to make sure that there is some kind of proof there are some incentive for prosecutors to charge the identity theft in the first place and so that's what we think that outside of history shows but the bottom line question here is why would congress adopt the exact same language that had already been interpreted by the courts to prohibit something is their intention was to have a statute that allowed something it was the got to be the government's position doesn't make any sense th