the on the land so they regardless of what might have happened in terms of of using the land for further so what i just have to question is first of all just a matter of what guideline year any way what you would have a district court to the value of the land there was also some prepayments on the other hand there were some costs in getting the mortgage or simply didn't go to them to and the prepayment the prepayment was part of the negotiation this wasn't something that just happens to go back to the lenders that's part of the negotiation and then the prepayments automatically be  the entire process of making the long so i think to that extent it is it is clarifying we did that in the story that commentary and it is commentary to guidelines that were amended  i think that certainly the the guidelines in effect at the time of the fans or the properly applies guideline the government did state that the argument they were making is without merit because the deed was not given to the lenders and so all a couple of years later that had nothing to i should be prepared to argue likely orally received that yesterday afternoon and am prepared to do so and i heard the court's earlier comments about its opinion on whether or not this panel will be the one to tee up the blakely issue in its entirety but i would argue that in this case in particular that that the blakely issues not right that there are that in this case there were no objections as to for instance which version the guidelines with the parties agreed argue that that there is no blakely issue in this case plus the indictment being rather it detailed indictment in this case and no objections as to the figures six hundred forty six thousand dollars one hundred eighteen dollars that the figures that are that we're discussing as to what should be the measure of loss those were never objected to by the defendant at trial either so i would argue that that that there is no disagreement about that application the any sort of blakely review assuming assuming the court gets to the question of whether or not likely applies to federal guidelines while if we were to know angry with your opponent this case i ask to go a tempting way to resolve it and preserve the issue for another day i would argue however that based on the merits really looking at obviously and the guideline analysis but but even looking at that sort of if you take the not the focus of the presentation the jury but obviously in the context of the defendant's conduct with his multiple lanes schemes multiple equipment trades sort of a shuffle sort of a card game deadly weapon with the intent to kill if i if i'm trying it with that offense and i commit that offense i don't kill that person but i sure as heck meant to in this case the defendant to get there eventually to to use the land for other purposes the defendant's pattern is to use whatever collateral he collateral whether it's properly recorded leaned a lean to way has actually no inherent value but he uses that as collateral to show other c m a stable main and that's his intent to possess the property that's what he intended when the crime was complete and whether or not question natural but well my point is is that the defendant relies on the assumption that that the victims will be able to recover that collateral that because it's real estate that they have to be able to recover that collateral in the course should assume that my point is not you can't assume that district court apply the well first of all the court did mention that we had a lot we had a week long problem this case and the court did mention facts so i would i would argue the  court took the facts of the defendant's long standing or at least up until the time is to to the scheme and thereafter the defendant's pattern and conduct in the court mentioned that the mention of the fact that he had applied for bankruptcy several times and looking at a solubility in his ability to develop the land and if we were to come back with an with first of all and so i would argue the court didn't apply the mechanical standard and if we were to come back with an equally mechanical standard to say well it should be the hurt you know whatever you know purchase price nine hundred ninety nine or maybe not quite that much take into account the efforts they had to go to get the the lean and that sort of thing and the fact it was fallow for two years you know even if we apply some other mechanical standard what i marked what i'm arguing is that that's not the standard intended by case law on the guidelines it's the defendant ten at the time the crimes complete  when he executed the skean he wanted to keep that land and that even two years later or a year and a half later he was still trying to keep that land and that but for the defense the victims in this case we still don't know there were some problems that the victim said and recording their liens and and making sure things are recorded properly and we're presuming that as a matter of law in all cases dealing with real estate that a victim will always have a perfected link and in this case that might not have been true so i would argue we're going not to a mechanical what's the value of the collateral but instead what's the defendant's intent when the crime is complete and you whole the failure to perfect a valid lien against  doesn't but but it well whichever version you applied it we're still looking at the same the same sort of core issue and that is what is the defendants in strength when the crime was complete and i would argue i'm sorry you're saying six hundred why must you given credit for that kind of a tenant privately and that but he that the prepayment wasn't any money that the defendant gave the lenders it was already calculated the amount of the loan in other words the six hundred forty six thousand dollars includes that first six months prepayment so in other words when he stole the six hundred for six thousand dollars that includes forty six thousand dollars for the first six months of prepa know as far as the overage as the court may recall the the purchase the final purchase price was about four hundred thirty some odd thousand dollars then there was the six hundred thousand dollars he actually pocketed after guess i would disagree because we're talking about the the use of this is this is money that had to be used in order to get to the property to begin with and this is this is part of what he intended to deprive the victims of to begin with and they were controlled the forty six thousand dollars the victims to mademoiselle not not at the time it was closed when well that the whole amount of six hundred forty six thousand dollars was transferred to the closing proceedings repay the amount of the loan with the total amount  entire issue of fraud in general and the amount was hotly contested during trial so there was no way for