the point of this the sense in this case had it been two years that it been four hundred fifteen days the court might think differently followed by nine hundred hours of community service for a man who had no prior criminal record who was built a number of schools of service to this community for decades who has employed thousands of individuals who has helped educate and care the previous four hundred one days as well then then i think the remedy is to vacate the sentence because the added nine hundred hours of community service is substantively unreasonable and amounts over a three year period of supervised release to literally particular the courts and references to it has to be in a soup kitchen and there were constant a look at moving on to the recusal part of this but there were constant references to greed in the lower court record and a refusal to accept the notion that simply because two people have assets that are worth roughly thirty million dollars probably more now that they have the ability to simply convert that into five point two million dollars which is what is which is the situation was the paying twenty seven thousand dollars a month in rent he had an apartment or should say his family and an apartment while he was in jail that was twenty seven thousand dollars in rent they had another apartment that was that was a loan to a that was that there was a tenant a well known well known actress paying thirty two thousand dollars a month that money was being spent that money was being put into the restitution and for her to fund from the moment i got involved in this case was after sentencing we started to negotiate with the united states attorney essentially saying look they don't have the liquid assets to do this here's a list of properties take whatever you want forfeit whatever you want there's no way to get if you could just post for a second and go back to judge dumb kids initial question so he has served the sentence he has yes and that you challenge for under rule thirty five correct and he has taken care and he has he's under supervised release he is for a good how much more time it would be about another two and i think the sentence was imposed back in september so were we to agree with you then the set these supervised release gets he gets relieved of that obligation as well as the community services or just the community service he wouldn't i mean this improvise really spirit i think would continue but at least i think you're not arguing the three years of supervised release was unreasonable no no as a point all are talking about him as the community so that's pretty much it and that's why i say that the sense here was that with we look at the judgement it says time served in fourteen days but it's four hundred and time i'm limited to just three years of supervised release i want to be fun well the flip side of that bargain is he banks the four hundred one days for use that a far does and judge should i think it's a distinction without a difference that the time has prison term fourteen days was substantively on reason i don't i don't think we we get there it's it's even if i were to agree with you that in the circumstances it was too much well in theory it's not if it's technically one could imagine he gets the satisfaction of the circuit saying yes we think this was an unreasonable prison term well no i think i think in part if there were to be a future violation then he in theory could rely on that probably one could make the argument that that time was something that he could use on an exit correct so if there's thirteen months gone or fourteen months i guess is i guess the total if you violate on a three your honor but more than anything it there is there is a there are if the court is going to either vacate that portion of the sentence that i think makes it substance reasonable which is the which is the  toward an attitude by the district court that simply suggest a lack of belief of anything that said including to counsel there was a time during the pendency of this litigation where we had gotten the money to pay all but roughly thirty eight thousand dollars in the last check which went through my escrow account as most of the money did i was a check from an account from that was in the name of mr shand sons evening jr and there was questions at that last proceeding about whether or not counsel had been involved in some impropriety by not talking to the son about where the funds came from no issue had ever been raised before no suggestion had ever been made that there was any impropriety in terms of where the money was from the united states attorney's office w worked constantly with the civil division about how to come up with a resolution of where and to whom the fun should be paid to over the course of eighteen months literally from the beginning i got into this case and so for those reasons there should be  time of the original sentence on a violation of supervised release that was about two years after the original sentence he had been signed three hundred hours to do he had done twenty so over a course of two years he did twenty hours of a three hundred so nowhere near complian hours that judge the district judge assigned as the violation a supervised release is the exact amount of the probation department requested this is the same probation department that watched him for two years as he didn't pay his restitution didn't pay his forfeiture and found time to do twenty hours over two years the probation department had the fullest sense of what he was capable of doing and what sort of time he had and gave him gave the court the advice that if he snatched up the case  necessarily your honor but the government at sentencing had asked that the court give him the full thirty seven to forty five months that he initially had under his original sentence the court in the government's opinion was very very lenient with him and has consistently been lenient with him it's far less and only a little bit more than what the recommended guidelines on a c violation of a violation approach supervised release would it would add in the range for c i believe it went up to ten ten months for the the recommended guideline range and just be clear your honor the your honor he was on bond for five months the sentence of the original plea happens in april of two thousand and thirteen in september of two thousand and thirteen the state department finds out that he's applied for a passport services makes a visit to his home they find out at the time that his children his twin boys were thirteen at the time had traveled to china with their nanny and that the defendant was applying for a passport the district judge then remanded him for the four hundred one days the forty one days is the date of the time that the state department believed he was about to flee the country and when he was sentenced and at that point the court gave him probation didn't give him any more jail time so that amount was not a sentence that the judge imposed later on that was the i think it's fair to say the appellant violating the court's trust and trying to leave your orders i would say from the since the plea in this case noncompliance has been to be the operative word for describing the appellant not just his attempts to leave the country but it's consistent refusal to requests i noted my footnote that this happened after the appellant's counsel kept on making the same argument judge yours i asked them to move on saying she had received those arguments she had read the paper she understood them and defense counsel said then said quote in all due respect your honor i don't think you understand what i'm saying even if you without that proper context i don't think these comments come anywhere near the standard that the supreme court and this court has set for bias or perceived not the case that mr acted con to macy's sleeve mr paulson was not part of the case at the time and it was immediately after his sentencing in october that we commenced discussions in an effort to passport and his counsel at the time explained to the court that he had a they have businesses in china and and he had a a a matter that had to be attended to rather than asking the court for leave to go to china to resolve  china it is his wife's mother is well into her ninety's she was there there was no effort to flee all of his children are american citizens as is as are he and his wife they have been here since they were very young people there is no interest whatsoever in all of their properties are located here all of their business they run something something in the air or twenty to thirty preschools there is no reason whatsoever for them for them to flee this was a foolish decision by mr shand to get a passport that obviously  didn't didn't endure to his to his benefit but the suggestion that along with the way he was avoiding this obligation is simply not true i was there and as a as i indicated we try to do this from the beginning thank you