this sort of scofflaw theory that your client had twelve of speeding tickets and was otherwise disrespectful to the water or something and so those are those those are what she's given and i think that ultimately the issue that we're going to have to decide is whether it was is no guideline range for speeding but you know there's not criminal traffic offenses and so even if you gave ten days for each one of you know d then you're in a one hundred and twenty dollars days you know i did start looking ok so now we're at two years and four months then how do you get from the would disagree with the points that were briefed in this matter about the court's findings and the pieces being supported and we can certainly address that if i could i'd like to just briefly address some of the offense conduct here the undisputed that underlies the court's decision in our view the defendant signed a non disclosure agreement with dupont in february two thousand and thirteen when he was hired in late july and was a put he was d a competitor employee said we're ready to bring you on board that never even met the guy or interviewed him according to the records and they increased his salary from eighty thousand dollars to one hundred and ten thousand dollars immediately with up to going up to one hundred and fifteen thousand  that same day they're telling him he's going to get a new car with leather and all this stuff and they tell him he's going to be in charge of two major counts to account for major counts to two dupont and we refer to them as p one point  response great have you seen a baseline data from any of these plants let me see what i can before acting at you've got the bull by the horns to this corporate employee of the new company and you're going to put some life back in the he says these may be of use to you if you're not comfortable doing these i understand let me know and the one guy response if you're ok with that i'm certainly ok with that are we going to have some fodder what a better response you better believe that and then emails me several documents pertaining to the wanted p to big bigger customers and several other clients of the pot including information concerning what we refer to as product a it was a product that was under says sure they raise all techs with me before giving the phone back they know what's going on is wrong they're only too happy to hire this guy the plying him he was an underperforming employee with dupont and never checked any references with the bottle on them they give him a significant a raise a car with leather seats all that stop before is everything on board and they start his compensation a week before he comes on board with this competitor company they are playing this guy and he's give us feeding information right back to him the way they want there's a search warrant on november th and then they send the order to get involved and he's the off is all about and then on november th you placed on administrative leave with full benefits and pay and i submit that that's an action to try to cover the pale of the corporate executives on december th the company sen him a letter which another which up purports to say they have no interest in stolen information and by gosh the guys on the information they don't want and they would just charge him if they never found that out all along with the oh oh it's could increase its business into pop would lose business and despite this he agreed you also agreed that he was using du pont's information to compare and help set prices for the competitor's product even before you left the ponce employment that's w the fact that there was punishment for this type of conduct they've suffered similar types of steps before this is very difficult to calculate as they say and they were quite open that they could not attribute a specific amount of loss to the defendant but as to these two particular clients on an annualized basis they show what the loss in sales were i mean in other words they were doing business with these two customers and particularly with the  one the one i mean month after month after month and then all of a sudden a month after the sentence lisa months and a half after you leave boom no more business for the next four years five years so  given everything else that the defendant says and admits that he knew that there was bad you hear that he knew that this could be used the fact that he was using it they believe that that absolutely the defendant had something to do where i was i find it remarkable loop on them are frankly incredible that dupont never considered requesting restitution in a situation where you have a lot of resources  in the hands of the bad guys those feed so we're in the record does establish that dupont never i'm sure they never found the plane but it is in the record that they never even talked about it it's not in the record as to whether they talked about say because i bet you can't fix it with any confidence i can say with confidence that it is not in the record anything with regards to restitution whether they were they  what we're dealing with yes and there was extensive amount gushing about various types of last year i mean it wasn't just lost in sales there were there's also other ways to calculate loss and frankly there are other things such as loss and goodwill profits other companies things like that every incentive lost was probably the seventeen million that it could well it's have exceeded that but that's all we put evidence on about just with regard to two customers which we thought