however in this case needs to give roy was the government's weakness she testified for someone to a grant of immunity and from the outset of her testimony the government took pains for the but she was willing to lie for it in other words but every seen in closing argument the government told the jury what to the most favorable view of the evidence was in the top union and that was that in these wanted a policy the government the way i think of this case your honor is that it is the closest we get to a stipulation without obviously ha that that we have to assume miss go roy wanted the policy i'm struggling somewhat with how you win anyway because it seems like made various misstatements that  specifically ask for about her marital status her employment her salary and wires and then signed her name to fit with those assertions so why isn't that enough for the conviction even doesn't not need the element of another person let me start with a right so presumably she knows what the insurer cares about in terms of whether they're going to grant the policy i mean i'm not sure why she would lie for no reason so maybe marital status had some relation to the likelihood of granting the policy i mean how  identification didn't have anything to do with the lie that well it says that she signed it right so i mean she essentially acts like she is miss gilroy applying for the policy and in the process was so how do but the defendants misrepresented that they needed that kind of the kind of transportation so the fraud was not about the fact that there was a transport and these people exist it was about the nature of the services and why the sick circus she wanted insurance i mean are are you basically saying she gave permission for her name and signature to be used and if so how is that consistent with the sooner alvarez she she  that tells us that the fact that someone shared their idea or gave permission to use their id doesn't stop this from being identity theft while also not of our eyes is about one element only which is without the law for all thor preparer some meets of a tax return in which underestimates income or of make some bogus claim actions in that case the identity of the  company require a signature on the application because they assume that whoever filled out the application will know the true answers to the questions i mean if miss gardner and had signed god her and instead of gilroy would have been denied because they'd say well who knows if she's giving the right information about honor i assume so so then so then it does seem that signing go roy's name is part of the representations of what's on the application but if that is the case then anny anything anything that still have another another person problem by sufficient evidence that she possessed transferred or used the identity of her cousin to submit a fraudulent life insurance application by including false information on the application form and forging her cousin's electronic signature under this court's precedent including united states of st vs blixt and united states vs assume alvarez this conduct constitutes use possession or transfer of another person or persons personal information and is sufficient to sustain the identity theft conviction karen's argument essentially amounts to an argument that this court's president should be disregarded and this panel doesn't have the authority to do that and even if it did it shouldn't  did not find that the jury completely disregarded was killed for his testimony what the district court found was that the jury could have concluded from the evidence that could guarantee submitted the application without doors knowledge the application and as this court has dollars too is that she wanted a policy but she testified that the important things like the amount of policy and the amount of premiums she would have to pay were things she did not ask for and did not agree to she did not ask to apply for a three hundred thousand dollars life insurance policy with a three hundred dollars a month payment that she could not possibly have afforded she also did not she testified she did not agree that ms guerin could put she agreed she could put one false statement  insurance is vice president testified that marital status was material because they wanted to make sure that the beneficiary was somebody who had a relationship to the insured to as a as a  premiums would come from i had no knowledge of who knew and was did not agree to it and one of the signatures that ms gerund forged on the application was ms viewers signature saying i have control of this account and i consent to money coming out of th sickout which is something ms goard testified she never agreed to because she didn't even know what that account was she had no control over it so and under blixt of the forgery of ms gore's signature which signing her name without her consent forgery is enough of that part though she she sort of did consent right i mean she may not have consented all the things in between but she did consent to an application in her name she maybe maybe assuming assuming that we don't take your argument that the jury could have disregarded that yes your honor however she never testified that she agreed that her cousin could forge her signature all she said was i called her up and said i'd like a policy and she was not familiar with the electronic application process she didn't know that you could just put her name in and have her signature appear she and no point did she say i asked her to sign my name for me and asking somebody to submit in a policy for you is not the same as saying i give you authority to forge my signature and so at no point there's no evidence that she gave that authority certainly she did not give the authority to sign on the line that said you can withdraw money from steve irwin's account over which i have a the jury was free to disregard his gross testimony because the court told the jury they were free to disregard it that was part of the jury instructions the jury instructions told the jury you can accept some of the testimony all of the testimony or none of the testimony and then the court further instructed the jury that they should consider ms go as testimony skeptically because she was testifying under a grant of immunity and what this court does when looking at the sufficiency of the evidence is look at whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's guilty verdict regardless of what the parties argued or whose interest the testimony was in the question is simply was there sufficient evidence and in this case as your honor noted the jury could definitely find that there was a motive for ms schiavo right to testify in her cousin's favor that her applications were no different than the fourteen other witnesses who testified that applications were submitted without their knowledge and consent in which the same type of information was the same type of misrepresentations were made and their signatures were also forged so there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that that it is very confusing because of the way that american income life the insurance company and their subsidiary insurance agents the way that they paid out commissions and bonuses is how they ended up making money because what would happen is if you as an insurance agent and if you submitted applications you got paid based on an advanced commission and a bonus and the advance commission what would happen is as soon as the st premium payment was sent in the agent would get seven months of advanced commissions paid to them immediately in addition if the agent had generated a certain amount of business they would then get bonuses paid on top of that and so essentially the structure of the conspiracy was to submit bogus life insurance applications pay premiums through four months because four months was how long  u considered the application to be a real applicant bogus wells fargo some bogus wells fargo accounts and then let the policy lapse so they would get the seven months of advance commissions they would get the bonuses on top of that they would only have to pay out the four months of commissions so that all of the bonuses and the remaining three months of commission were all profit that was made to them and and if you were a supervisory agent like a gerund was or her you not only got the print policy as you did you got the policies that everybody under it which garin roped in don tang and bottle lopez and other people underneath her to also use their names or give these policies to them and have them issue these policies because not only did she get more money from their commissions also because they were newer agents the bonuses were higher because i had higher bonuses to encourage new agents to generate business to retain those to retain those agents so that again goes into the role it just meant which is she needed to have these people under her at her direction doing these things so that she could make more money restitution order i'm actually wills start with the formulation of the order under holden because i think on the face of it that appears the most problematic although it is not so under hold in what this court founders that there were two problems with the restitution order one was that the just a court made no finding that the rest to sion could not be paid immediately in this case the just a court made no such miking the district court did not find that the restitution could not be paid immediately and in fact it was made jointly the nd air that that it court found a hold and was that the rest and restitution schedule was not made in the alternative to pull payments so this court found that it was internally inconsistent because the rest touche an was order to ordered paid both immediately and on a schedule but not in the alternative here the district court specifically made the the recitation payment in the alternative and that's by using the word balance yes  because the court says do immediately and then balance due in accordance with the schedule i'm so the chew airs that this court found in holden simply don't exist in this case as to the calculation though i think in your brief talked about there being credits in the back end accounts based on this fraud but i would have thought there would be owing money in their back and accounts because of the fraud because as i understood it once the policies are cancelled at four months the people who had sold those policies would both some money from their through their back end accounts for the four to seven month difference that is true your honor however  accounts included policies that were part of the fraud and also policies that were not fraud and so the back end accounts would also include credits for other policies that were happening  so the important thing to understand about the bakken account is it's not an account it's simply a spreadsheet it's a tracking mechanism to say something what could possibly happen in the future if certain conditions are met and because it is entirely speculative and it is not a real it's not a real asset in any shape or form there's simply no way and out of this case law the court is not required to deduct some specular future happening from the real restitution that is owed to the victim in this case valuable contractual benefits the fact that instead of money being actually because in a bank account the company was keeping track of them makes no difference but i know your thoughts on that they wouldn't have been fired for cause right sure so but why why would it be reasonable for the district court to think these are clearly not very loyal people to the company they're not that reliable or honest they would have been fired for some other thing because  pure speculation on are these people these people had worked for for a long time there is nothing in the records suggesting that there would have been otherwise fired for cause nothing that's pure speculation  that they're going to take a break will take a ten minute break