five zero one united states of america versus   as discussed in her brief there was no motion for downward variance no sentencing memorandum miller urging for a lighter sentence or even a sentence of the bottom of the guideline range no argument in pretrial supervision age sixty one years old poor health is cetera there's throughout the country in the different circuits is a long long list of cases where significant departures based on any one of those factors occurred counsel it is not only our practice to deal with ineffectiveness claims not on to correct appeal and i'm wondering if if you believe that  dealing with these this claim these claims now read and dealing with them after the pilates is normally the way we handle heard that the guideline range would be the same because her of sixty one of the pre sentence report articulated at the us government sustained a total loss of eight hundred forty thousand four hundred ninety nine dollars so that total loss amount which drives the guideline range was fully fully accounted for and the first factor that was the total documented loss in that way i'm not sure i morning i'm ellen lot would representing united states i'm going to just address those two issues that counsel opposing counsel raised on the ineffective assistance counsel it's clear from the record that you know perhaps the attorney could have done a little bit more but it's also clear from the record that the judge consider did awful  completely twenty five twenty something letters that were submitted on her behalf from members of the public members of her family from her grandson so i don't know what part the attorney had in an orchestrated for asking for those letters but all of those letters that addressed you know her health the fact that she had been a great you know  her family loved her that her grandson would miss for all of those kinds of motional leaves for their grandmother who was sixty one who had been convicted were presented to worse so alternative argument is if this court does consider it you just can't say this attorney was ineffective on this record because there is so much that was presented to i'm not sure that saying that it's true the court mentioned the letters but i can't don't remember the gist portress that help i'm not trying to i'm not expressing a viewpoint on that i'm just writing like what did the district court not address that they they say should have been addressed i don't believe the district court specifically talked about her health what the court did say is i'm concerned i am down to consider the thirty five fifty three factors and and her personal characteristics and he talked about those letters and basically rejected the plea first and the district court seemed to be of the opinion that based upon hearing the evidence that she was the ringleader of this very large being that involves so many people and so much money yes and the district court was nothing that was backed up by the p s r and the you know in the p s r she said she manipulated her added amounts to a schedule c to triggered or didn't come credit she admitted she placed education expenses on her return to knowing that the clients did not have them she said that she trained her niece who was an employee she trained her daughter stepdaughter who is an employee she gave them permission to file false tax returns one of the witnesses says that she went around from station to station and she would kind of check off and look at the screen and see how the return had been prepared and then ok and  then and those two probation officer that they thought literally permission to follow the false tax returns so she clearly was charge she own the distance she ran the business it was in a converted garage there were close quarters so she really was the one that she trained him they went to training together so it's very clear that she was in charge and that she was at work permitted this to go on or in very large part and i think you'll see there are probably about four hundred returns where the educational expenses were exploited and they were able to do that when you go to institution so in other words they could very easily cash for our on education expenses where they can easily catch and document fraud on all of these  so so i guess my point is she confessed like she told that agents that some of her clients were exotic dancers and what she qualify for the earned income credit she told the agent she had one hundred to two hundred these clients and that was first team but those aren't included those one hundred to two hundred where there is just a huge loss to the government tells let me ask you about counts three and six i think related to taxpayer angel gilla yes your hon where the government can see that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict on those counts yes sure do we need to vacate the remains and for we sentencing in connection with that yes s to convictions and conspiracy i believe the evidence indicates the judge will get a very same sentence for cardless of losing these two counts but that's really where are the senate is it because it was approved and he imposed thirty six on each each one of those thirty six months i'm sorry three years on each counsel for the appellant has argued that it's not appropriate for us just reform the judgment because it doesn't get reflected in the in the actual copy of the judgment and that people get confused about the convict can once and this is impacted people in immigration circumstances and things because this doesn't our opinion or doesn't always get carried with the judgment if that makes sense the paperwork issue is do you do you have any comment on that i believe will probably be clear the district court did i do think that's true because you know she she is