or has she considered moving to reopen to speak and do hardship determination and i noticed that she had written a hardship in her original papers but had never actually sought that kind of thank you just following up on judge carney's last question if i understood it the federal government guaranteed the loan at the time it made isn't that irrelevant craig even if i understand your response to kaleri observations before they start or continue with the formal remarks that i had prepared there is no evidence which counsel has indicated took place with changes in the cell there is no evidence presented to the back of the court or argument that they apply to this case to any extent there was no evidence or argument made to the back of the court court's decision but it also found after mr jenner presented no evidence or any legal argument as to why i think it was not a governmental unit based on pennsylvania law that form and even fia as however based on the record of the case there was more than adequate basis for applying that presumption in this case the bankruptcy hat court had four uncontested evidence that mischance a student loan debt was at risk evidenced by  in schedule as a priority and in the preceding page to that schedule check the box that she was listing gas odor to a governmental unit so you have a judicial cited by this chant or herself in rate after saw founded fear was a quote guarantee agency that guarantee student loans for the secretary of education under the sell program and help th government and c s guarantee that long as a guarantee agency for the secretary of education i was general also glosses over the fact that having filed a motion to reopen it was her burden to demonstrate cause to reopen the case reliability as a person and the false claims act is the proper standard to apply to determine whether and it's a little like c as a governmental unit under the back or to go it would be groundbreaking decision no court has made such entity must be an agency or instrumentality of the state or commonwealth to be a government unit that determination i would submit should be made by reference to a lot d and as it is for many other important purposes intended an arm of the state analysis to govern whether an entity qualifies as a governmental unit we wouldn't find some suggestion of it in the legislative history but there is not the legislative history does say however that the  so you have both the plain language of the statute supporting consulting pennsylvania law and status as an instrument tally and agency the state government case is it happens that it was decided in connection with determining whether seven counties or rather the debtor there was a governmental unit under section ten thousand one hundred and twenty seven of the bankruptcy code and even if you consider those factors they're all d met in this case they considered whether the state created the entity whether the marks way in favor of holding that c is a governmental unit was created by the commonwealth of pennsylvania it can be dissolved by the commonwealth of pennsylvania over in the rd circuit  a state agency so that that concludes my prepared remarks and for those reasons i submit the bankruptcy court  during argument today mr smith referred to the daniela case decided the end of august of this year that is discussed extensively in the reply brief and just scanning the reply brief how it bears on the case because i'm not sure that you had a complete chance to do that  those circumstances i think we could say and based on the case law that i cited that considers the cell to be a program funded by the federal government thank you very much mr smith