the heart well this is the case involving the district courts removal of a criminal defendant from his sentencing hearing for unruly the without warning and sorry but there are many similarities to basically both are rooted in their sentencing hearings without warning or destructive behavior and both a video conference into the hearing out of that although the defense did not have the ability to speak they were they simply watched proceedings on march or after their major differences between these two cases are that mr moore has moved his entire  the major difference is i think what you just said that that they at least had some warning that he was that mr lines was going to observe the hearing video conference here your argument is that there was no warning at all right right no warning whatsoever and it was in the middle of the proceedings so the attorneys may have been caught off guard so does that alone just no warning at what the case law says when you let it seems at odds with it does automatically wrong i mean i agree with you it does so you use is ok will do the district court judge here exercising discretion but will making this decision because we want parties to bring the issue to the attention of the district court and here in a fairly unusual set of circumstances it was brought to the attention of the district court not by the defense lawyer but by the prosecutor so why should we can give the court his view of things and the defendant in this case will certainly given them an opportunity so i guess if you're looking at whether the error here elocution and he had pretty extensive elocution then why was this error requiring reversal so my answer to that is that the defense was removed from the most important part of sense here which was the so right but heap given some arguments about that right right and so when you look at the reasons for that in person sentencing for example one of them i've read one of these was to prevent the judge from becoming immediacy and a person to ration what he's about to receive allowing victims the immediacy of a person to be you see what's going on in their lives and allowing it as many friends in person the district court was interested in was hearing from the defendant asked to the sentence and any mitigation that he would proper in the allocution but this defendant was hell bent on making terroristic legal arguments  the judge kept trying to focus is the tension on the purpose of allocution that is to speak to the court about what the appropriate sentence should be and so the question really is i think whether or not he was actually whether in fact he was given that opportunity given the fact he was a morning who he would be removed and if so if we think that he hasn't whether it's reasonable to assume on this record that he was never going to allocute in the way that the district court was time i don't know there's much more to add i think if the court has questions about it i'm happy to address in that but if i if i understood the argument it was that you seem to be suggesting that because the rd party purchases in this case ultimately the funds were ultimately diverted from them that somehow that isn't enough to implicate financial institutions but if i understand this record correctly the financial  on the property and my understanding of the record is that the liens themselves even putting aside the amounts paid by the rd party purchasers that the liens themselves were over a one million dollars and so that amount would seem to support the result and what was the back of the financial institutions in this case had these liens on the property which your client falsely entered documents into the records suggesting that they were satisfied and that's not that not mean that obviously is fraud and so in that sense they were those interests of the banks and institutions were diverted they had these liens they were extinguished and if i did my math correctly understanding that we most of us anyway went to law school to avoid math that  those amounts are over a one million dollars so the rip and result is is a wash it doesn't whether you look at the rd party purchasers or the banks the amount of harm in this case what's essentially the same and so the enhancement would seem to show their losses i don't know i mean i get your argument that they are tantamount by not an argument it's just a statement you can agree or disagree right i get your position that these are  just that's it how much it was really nothing more to it so if there are no further questions you know less on and see the stand to thank you very much reasonably i noted in preparing for and the arguments on the government sentencing it did and i wanted to st address the standard of review issue because i noted that was listed on the court's discussion of what was going to be talked about here it's harmless here and so i have a direct the court's attention to what level of warning is required forty three before the defendant is removed from the courtroom in the government's view honestly in conducting my and i think the question is is whether it's reversible or not and i came up with the best argument i could figure out which was the elocution argument but i think judge d is makes a fair point because the guy wasn't put on  knew that the judge wasn't buying his jurisdictional are certainly knew that there's no question about that but and the district court knew what he's supposed to do is to give me reasons in his allocution why i would say less than the government would want but i'm not sure that the defendant knew that because not only did he not really get a warning he didn't get anything like you know i don't want to hear about he certainly got i don't want to hear about  two so i think that this is a defendant knew what intelligence and was presented with the judge who really was trying to redirect and get him to focus and make sure that he was have a non disruptive defendant and the judge says this is your opportunity to allocute the defendant says i don't have anything to say but a few minutes later right before the judge is about to enter sentence the defendant changes his mind  of this is different i guess in the sense that you're right he was repeatedly told about his right but i guess of what i'm asking is sort of the timing of this is all in the context of the failure of the district court to tell the defendant that you're going to be i'm going to kick you out refusing that how cute and then the judge says that's it i'm not hearing from anymore and then to defend it's as a wait a minute i change my mind i do want to allocute here's what i want to say about the sentence and the judge says sorry too late what about that he should but in this case he's not been kicked out of the courtroom he's been told to sit down and be quiet and then that after talking to his lawyer he gets up again and says your honor i apologize i need to i do want to say something about the sentence and the judge s really agree the defendant was disruptive yes and but in order to remove a disruptive dippin a pursuant to the rule in my case my there has to be a warning well and i suppose that i think that the strongest resulted in his removal or oh i think the court to look at the st thing the bet is heard saying from the from the holding cell is i sure hope he wants to talk about jurisdiction now to meet that w change his conduct but i think it also indicates going back to church to use this suggestion that he was not focusing on the fact that this is the one and only opportunity to say something that would get the judge to fact that the defendant was fixated on jurisdiction and i'm willing to follow the court's instruction there was very little the court could have died i mean i can switch gears for just for a minute to talk about this a one million dollars  just talk about the big one the big one yes and the proceeds from that scheme alone are worst to satisfy a one million dollars of gross receipts the language that i am focused on is that the sentencing that th at one time and i'm trying to figure out my own mind with this is the guy lines are statute talks about an offense which affected a financial institution and the dirt and the defendant derive more than a one million dollars  sentencing guidelines in two thousand and one that was amended in change to be in the newspapers in the gross receipts or to be derived from the financial institution in response to that virtually every circuit court that has considered this question has said that the enhancement only applies when the financial institutions are the source of the gross receipts going on to say the amended language makes it clear that the enhancement only applies if we're three seats in excess of a one million dollars on dollars are derived from the financial institution under this language the only effect on a financial institution that house is money laundering from a financial institution in defendant's coffers another court enhanced an appliance where a financial institution suffers some type of loss or belie ability providing the the requisite funds so that's what i i wonder and it seems to me that those cases would not have supported the government here with respect to these cases i mean the government makes nothing of this change i mean doesn't acknowledge or use quote the correct guideline but you don't suggest that there's any change in the  that was subject to the bank so in so certainly that would if effected the financial institution there's no doubt about that so you can find under the previous guidelines but i'm not i just don't understand how you can say the gro own and then he resold it to unsuspecting rd party purchase a so how is affected different in this language than i think that in this particular scenario it isn't different because the defendant took an interest of the ba indirectly real or tangible or intangible property from the bank and to suggest that this is needed not something of value that it clearly is there's a secondary market there's a reason why these banks maintain an interest look at either the amount of the mortgages that were extinguished where his ability to resound this property all that is true i think like we're ships ok asking in the night what i'm trying to focus on is the difference between affected a financial institution and derived from the financial institution and there's nothing that you've said to me that has helped me make that distinction because when the sentencing commission changed the guidelines they obviously intended to change when our sister circuits have looked at the new language and they have said there's a change so what i've has communities so what is the change it's not the one i find and i suppose in this case i do view i think that it was i see that my time is now you can answer the question and i think that it was perhaps in response to cases like this where initially a bank was just being used as a pastor or a conduit for