assessing that two point two million dollars loss to the net jets company jet leasing company that was basically the driving force of his guideline you could take all of the other intended loss amounts out and you would still get the same return checks that he had not seen before copies of which we didn't have even for the proceeding could turn into my my main argument the two million dollars to net  the finding there as i said is critical because it's the driving force behind his guideline and his bench was that there was some evidence put on but there was nothing showing that he had signed a e whether the evidence that whether the rather the more common question of whether a substantial step was accomplished that renders the defender guilty of with attempted crime so mean we're not we there was in the eye so i thought it was clear she was she was his agent she was working for his company but this case is littered with mr smith signing  false bank accounts and here we don't we're talking about the rent a debt situation is there any question from the record that what was or a name  consistently writing checks writing checks writing checks here you don't and then well you have something more here and that's why i'm wondering whether we even need to get into the agency he says and i'm quoting  here that he wanted a jag as soon as possible and that she was to quote do whatever it took to secure and i don't i mean that to me and gave her and gave the woman his credit card i don't know if if that's not an intended loss i don't know what it is well i still think there needs to be more because that's just what hearsay with and hearsay saying nothing showing mr smith actually saying that well yeah i mean yeah it's hearsay but you can use hearsay in a sentence a year and that's that's pretty good evidence that he wanted her to do it that he intended for that trip he wanted to get that transaction dot that's what he was saying if you were to do that he would have continued to submit payment your honor so i think there's still like more steps that you know that have to take your abandonment argument maybe a little bit stronger that he may have attended the last at some point but at some point he just said act with this i don't need the jet anymore and i don't want to i don't want to go for  i mean i think that's you know alternative too because and that's why i'm pointing out it's analogous to off duty officers because they're she specifically says never mind but when mr limbaugh is continue ask for the return binder he didn't write a check here that he gave her the credit card even if they only accept like a payment there's no wire payment either i mean one of the exhibits is just a blank credit card authorization form ok so you think you think then that i'm just wondering whether the absence of a check you're saying that even so there's there is the absence of a wire transfer there's just the absence of of any form of payment or a signed contract and the everything else like he's got a signature on something i want to point to just a few cases were intended last were found united states versus jordan and that's the sixth circuit case in two thousand and eight they upheld intended loss even though obviously it didn't go through because it's intended loss but where there calculation that included attempted cash advances drawn in excess of catches cash advance limit so i just think that there needs to be more of a step here to show two point two million that's the driving force in the age that on this day and you know it mitts there's cases where people are interested in something they want to quote but they don't return any of the documents or the payment and that wasn't fraud and he did say that will move like it's the agency question that the judge loken was getting at which is my understanding maybe maybe going to tell me i'm wrong about this that she actually is the agency point she actually submitted the credit card in the credit that is my understanding of it ok i think you're saying the same thing i am it's are you saying that she never she never submitted the credit card as his agent to not jets the claim through the agent is that she did but never received any attempted payment ok all right i'm going to reserve the remainder of my time for a bottle the court my name is amy driver assistant united states attorney appearing on behalf of the government for the western district of arkansas and i was also the attorney for the government at the district court level as well as mr williams representing the appellant we ask you to  to include his entourage and his wife who actually turned out to be his girlfriend's here make up crew he wanted it as soon as possible and whatever it takes these corroborate not only his intent but also the urgency that he felt in to pretend to be a president a candidate for president and he's trying to put on as good a show as possible that's not unusual in the political world and so if he so he goes to what he said i've  rally and if i write about i will cedar rapids and i'm going to go there and i want to land in the fanciest jet possible i want to have all the banners i want to have cheerleaders and everything the whole bit and he goes to cedar rapids but the but is his deal for the red object falls through and so he does he went and so he doesn't get the jet in time to go to cedar rapids and he says well they have you know to be able to get all the juvenile medical patients in northeast arkansas referred to his company the corps projected that this court rejected that argument to the jets was they were smart enough to say wait a minute you know you don't get the it i don't think the purpose of the guidelines very well served by by multiplying by five a factor of five is lost for for sensitive purposes well we don't just have the fact that he wanted to chat and he mentioned it to tanya holcomb he repeatedly told her to get it under contract it has also cooperated by the fact that we have independent witnesses there was the vice presidential candidate the older veteran in arkansas that he duped into becoming his vice presidential candidate who testified that appellant stated to him that he was going to purchase a lear jet for the campaign he was in the process of getting it what about the payment i asked those accounts about the payment i want to know exactly the evidence on the payment if you would so the testimony was that were tonya holcomb stated that while they were in a hotel and i don't know where but that he had given her a card she didn't know what kind of card it was to pay for it she tried to after it didn't go through she heard arguing between the appellant and his girlfriend and then he stated later that it didn't go through because his account was tied up that there were some other transactions happening that was his common excuse on that oh there must have been multiple things hitting the account at once so there is evidence that the that there was an attempted payment and that the risk he was upset when it didn't go through yes absolutely h l and in that case the as the court found that i believe the last was you know over a hundred thousand that they included all of the it that he w need to obtain all the patients all the juvenile medical patients in the north west area his argument was that that would have been in possibility and i do have a copy of that that i can obtain the and the record reflect there was many situations where he was actually able to obtain five vehicles from auto nation  on producers were not moral judges were just moral arbiters or something i believe he stated on the record in the senate saying transcript you know that he had he was of arkansas he was traveling around in an armed entourage with an armed entourage in a blacked out car with flags and the district court recognized that the subject of intent was also port supported by the fact that less likelihood is he will be held to his true desserts well i mean that brings a point you know we could win arguments and still end up with the same satin but we just want things to be done the right way transaction that never have those counting it reflect the purpose of the was guidelines to wind up with a range that fairly reflects the seriousness of the press and this chap may wind up at the statutory max without the work site for some of the reasons discussed but i have trouble seeing where we're counting this this caper in the last category is a fair reflection of then if we get to hundred twenty months we get there but i feel like we need to be very cautious about inflating and intended loss on an already low burden where i feel like i think the court can look at clear air and find that that was clear  it's new to me the information about mr holcombe repeatedly trying to do that the only information i had was that she claimed that she made some payment and apparently mine changed or whatever it didn't go through wasn't received and i feel like if we're going to hold him for something that basically is driving the entire guideline that we need more thank your honour's real clear the bill i'm inclined to think i would have