here there is an opportunity to pay benefits and it would appear that she and her husband obtained a benefit from i'm not sure that it's of a necessarily appropriate but by what does it matter whether the benefit is you know today tomorrow or six months from now if she could if she's  security benefit you contend that the offense was applying for force so security number not using on it or simply applying from one under false pretenses doesn't imply that one of the things in mr salmon statement is an explanation of why this whole social security card thing became an issue he says i'm going to this outward upward bound program and i'm state of the council there contact i'm in the potus and say well we can't put him in a program unless he's got a social security for public assistance that if they got extra benefit pushed up in medical assistance benefits that she wasn't eligible for that's correct and she was prosecuted and after that there was again ancillary benefits and the transitions in that last part of my argument which is fit but she harbored someone who was a lawful alien and then went out and got or attempted to get benefits could she otherwise was not entitled to is is there a time work when you do something other their property in connection with transporting smuggling or harboring and on russia that are epically only one usually you think of it normally bring in somebody  apply over time as long as that harboring is going on and certainly in it if you're looking at whether it was done other other than for profit over a time period that there may have been some sort of payments or expectation of payment on i think the  profit then payment for expectation of payment and finds that payment doesn't necessarily have to be monetary and to be something that the defendant values government benefits like a government government benefits or and there a lot of talk about the government benefits but also would point out that that you have the fact that samurai and was expected to turn over any money that he made to the pot which he did and they deposited in their own bank accounts that the housework that he was doing i don't think so your honor because we don't you know whether even if this wasn't a harboring case if this was a transportation case do we get into how the person who got paid for the transportation spent the money that they got no and he would we give them a pass on this if you know they blew a transmission in the van if they were being paid to use and had to spend all of their money into fixing the transmission they didn't profit from that then other than the fact that they were they had money that they wouldn't otherwise have and that would be the same thing here if they they got the benefits and they chose how to use it and so therefore i don't think that allows them to whether that is actual deceitful s or whether it's just failing in his memory it isn't clear i think to directly answer your question i think if you look at the fact it can only government produced all of those exhibits for the hearing that showed him being cut checks by various entities penn state some others and then alternately show the bank records which show that those were not deposit it into his accounts they were deposited into the coffers accounts so that would court corroborate his statements that look whenever i had money they demanded that i turned it over because they took me took that money and put that into their own accounts so that would be the corroboration that it medically with regards to the college course work and work around the house you know that there's there's no independent corroboration there because it happened within the studio apartment and i don't know that there's anyone else saw it but my problem is what evidence apart from of course thoughts over the lack of credibility is there to support the sabbath which could well i think again looking at it the bank records and what happened with the money that pops there with that sam are made and what was done with that is what he claimed also you can look at his statement and say look they they threatened me that i i did away with this or didn't do it they said that they would turn me into immigration authorities they would they would do all sorts of helping that's exactly what they did once he sought to get out of this arrangement they call the police and made accusations that were completely false about you know him had looking at weapons and having weapons making statements against the jews and turn him in they did exactly what it is that they had threatened they would do if he sought to get out potts was also a deceitful and conniving person and so when the district court is faced with trying to figure out which version there is to believe she did exactly what you supposed to look at where there is corroborating evidence and there is follow the money that he said he made that that we know was paid big checks were cracked to him but then were put in her account her husband's account and you have admitted the fact that she carried through on the threat and did exactly what he said it would seem the case would be stronger against her if you look at the pre ninety seven of the guidelines what sucks about the actual gain or commercial advantage for harboring well it's been changed to pink is what it was a change the payment for illegal harboring yes of what so is a set of payment for illegal harboring i mean  me the three seven create ninety seven language supports the government's position more than the the post ninety seven or the ninety seven language that the amendment made in ninety seven and that's certainly  depends argument but the government respectfully disagrees with that and if you look at the reasoning behind the amendment where they talk about the reason for changing the wording was actually to narrow the field of people who would qualify for the exception and when you look at the fact that before when you talk about financial gain or business transactions that sort of thing if it really did keep it to financial gain and business whereas now it's just talking about payments generally which don't necessarily need to lead to financial gain and again if you look at the seventh and eighth circuit in the way that they've interpreted payments to be anything of value zero anything of value can fall outside of of mere financial gain or business advantage so that we would believe that would be the one that is the classic example here but the mere fact that this doesn't fit into the classic example of what would be harboring or transporting or smuggling pre pubescent doesn't mean that the guidelines doesn't