and the lawyers in this case it may please the court our case has to do with whether in fact there is a law to the victim or a victim in an amount in excess of ten thousand dollars whether the record has reflected such a law in using the test in each one of circumstance pacific task as we've argued in our brief it does not there is nothing that proves that the loss to the victim was ten thousand dollars or more one thousand dollars your client signed a plea agreement middling to now i understand later this part of his cooperation the government reduces the charge but he actually signed and therefore made it to committing a fraud where the offense was one hundred thousand dollars or more why isn't that enough to satisfy in the government have said that as part of that plea agreement the charges were going to be reduced from st degree to rd degree felony st that's an error because if we look at the plea agreement and it i'm looking at the record page one  committed actually committed the more serious offense that is correct judge he agreed that he committed those two offenses there's nothing in the plea agreement that says as to what amount he counts in the information in case number eight he agreed to plead guilty to that charge including that amount there's no reservation as to the amount your honor i believe unless there's more proof as to the amount that he is not pleading guilty to that amount and pleading guilty to the commission of those crime is an amount to be determined let me ask the question  way then why do you suppose the parties men when they put into the plea agreement this language that person went to this agreement the defendant will cooperate with the state of florida as proceeds and the amount of one hundred and four thousand six hundred and sixty two dollars was a reference that amount at all in this plea agreement the reason that amount was referenced your honor is because there was one hundred and four thousand dollars confiscated from the co defendants car those those there was never any proof there's nothing in the record to show that that one hundred and four thousand dollars had anything to do with the perpetrated fraud against the insurance companies if we remember this is a case where there was a scheme a corporation was set up an amount of workers compensation was obtained so that bids could be placed with general contractors for construction work those checks would then cash the check cashing stores which is part of this whole conspiracy part of this crime and the monies that were found cannot be related back to saying that i went to the insurance company and i took one hundred and four thousand dollars those are the proceeds from those checks being cash and the amount has to do with a defendant not being able to profit from the new legal activity and this is the profits for instance if i were to steal two hundred dollars from somebody i've made the loss of that person is two hundred dollars i've now invested that two hundred party again i don't believe there's anything in the record that shows that that this corpsmen went to those insurance companies or to anyone else but that the government i believe in this case the broward county sheriff's office who is a russian a slightly different way that we generally understand the idea of this or it's meant to being a form of restitution measured by the defendant's wrongful game isn't that exactly what this courtroom means well your honor in fact it's an equitable form and i filed a supplemental case this morning with the court that i only found last night which speaks about discordant the supreme court case that was an eighty one case justice sotomayor wrote the opinion and she goes into discordant and how disgorgement is an equitable remedy this quarter has nothing to do with the actual loss to a a a group party we believe your honour's that this is a case where the government has not been able to establish the threshold of ten thousand dollars there is language there but the facts of the case don't lend themselves to proving that be lost and that's the important part here has to be the loss to the aggrieved party has to be ten thousand dollars that discordant is not a loss if it were a loss and there was a discord yet he would even have to sign anything if if if the government claims that i stole two hundred dollars for me or ten thousand dollars or whatever amount it is i don't have to sign that i'm giving it back to you it doesn't belong to me what he's signing here is any right that he may have  case states that the monetary value of titian's fraud was one hundred thousand dollars or more and further record evidence indicates that the entire scheme to which this year acted as an aider and abettor in fact involved millions of dollars in losses and u dishonors sentence was reduced due to his cooperation that doesn't change the fact that what he pled to which was a fraud involving at least one hundred thousand dollars and monetary value which the state court of florida  refers to as monetary loss and secondly it's important to know that he is an aider and abettor so even if the court were to accept the sentence agreement somehow reduced the amount of money he's still responsible for the entire scheme and if you look further into the record the judge that you know the war didn't rely on the testimony that was presented by the judge did and under the circumstances that approach you can look at it that this so long as i have i've a question about he has to be removable for a conviction right and when we determine what a conviction is do we look at both what the indictment charge she pled to and what he was sentenced for because if you look at the sentencing documents here the subsection in the senate same documents is a different subsection of the what charge was he actually convicted of and when we look at what he's can fix it up do we have to look at what the sentence was for the sentencing documents here have a different subsection  right that's the theory what's this is an admission of an amount of money that can be considered when determining whether the fraud involved at least ten thousand dollars i th says that the agency was entitled to look at the facts right like i'm like you categorical approach exactly because you're seldom going to have a federal stat when i read what the immigration judge it's not entirely clear to me the immigration removal is i guess is for a conviction if it involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim a victim is ten thousand dollars so how is your argument it because when you got a look at the conviction what his conviction is is is not for i mean is far over five thousand or whatever it is three but not greater than twenty and  so it's and volved is that because that's a broad term as opposed to based on our that doesn't matter will be involved language goes to whether it's fraud so there is a supreme conviction to determine the loss as long as that's tied to the conviction that is ok and in this case what we're saying is that there is a conviction prefer what he admitted in his admission and his plea agreement as a condition of count two of the information and invoked over one hundred thousand dollars in exchange for three years of probation and the payment of one hundred and forty thousand dollars and his words but even those rd degree felony is something that's less than twenty thousand point that you were just making your honor yes the statute under which he was convicted of rd degree felony carries an amount that could be up to twenty thousand dollars but again looking at everything in the case using the nice one case and looking at a the information the government needs to look at what was in the plea agreement the government also needs to look at what he was ultimately sentenced to there's a reason why he was sentenced to an amount that's lower i understand that and  involves more than one hundred dollars yes your honor but something happened between our point is something happened which we did which is not in the record something happened between the time that he signed that a plea agreement and the time sentencing and i know  money service business that's all that was agreed to at the pre agreement so what we're arguing your honor is that the court and the board of immigration appeals didn't look at this properly it's not tied his sentence is not tied to the plea agreement his sentence tied to something that we believe happened between that time the government not may not have been able to prove one hundred thousand dollars amount that's why the government kept arguing this discord you know mount the government's argued tried argued today that this discourse minima has to do with the actual loss and rely on anything in the record to say that the amount of loss was over one hundred thousand pieces and i raised the question is it looks and made like that was a finding of fact made by the administrative agency on this question and we were view a finding of fact in a way that we say is the administrative findings are conclusive unless any reasonable to do the case it would be compelled to conclude to the contrary and if that indeed is the appropriate standard to the fact finding which is what is at issue here then it seems to me we'd be hard pressed to say that the administrative agency quote look at the plea agreement and what he admitted to and come away with the sense that the fraud involved one hundred and four thousand dollars so case referred to this is well when we're talking about a statute that has to do with a fraud or defeat and we get to that ten thousand dollars amount this is a done over review because the law was misapplied in this case there is no law that can be established but of a certain amount of money and again law the law specifically provides that when we're talking about disgorgement the phrase is or the word is a very particular word disgorgement is a word that's been used as a remedy that's been used in ecuador equitable remedy it's been used since the th hundreds if not before and that specifically has nothing to do with a loss and that's why i believe that the law was misapplied because there