illness and i know this person's been very difficult for the courts but that may be a sign of mental illness also there are one page  inadequate when they're relying on there is actually one individual who's seeking restitution whose name is that of a former president who lives in mississippi everything else  give a definite amount of restitution to the accused in this case mehmood and that's one of the factors that the courts have not and what is that is that restitution inspector and basically what comes back is how much did you lose and they'll be one page we lost one hundred and forty seven dollars that's it a lot of these which is an addict another point that is where we actually had a paper from the doctor attending mr mehmood when he was in ice custody indicates severe situation with mental illness clearly you're jumping back and forth from the probably compensate questions at the  cases out of the th circuit point out that the fact that he was found providence some time ago is something that can be considered but obviously mental stability is something we can be changed and these cases indicate that there was a change circumstance one of the things that may well have caused him this difficulty is he's in his custody he's fighting to stay in this country and that's a stressor that actually could well have caused these problems i mean this is just dumb and sense right now having a record  from a doctor saying that he was he had he was hospitalized for some period of time and i actually had a mental illness that right i found what i had he was in the hospital diagnosed with this items that you've just relayed which i felt was sufficient to raise the need for a continuance without asking to be no we don't know how long he was hospitalized so in summary i believe that there are two main points one is that there was an indication of a mental illness which if we should have been investigated by the corps if nothing else in that may have been my fault but at this point when i saw that there was an indication on a hospital document what his condition was i felt that was sufficient at least to ask for a postponement decide this was an argument but he didn't say before he decided that there was going to be an argument that right what happened was that he district court when i asked for a continuance because of this i just whether the district court could have proceeded against an incompetent and that the question is whether the defendant waived his right to challenge a denial of a subsequent akaka here the government then sentencing was unconstitutional well at least the sentence was unconstitutional then there's some case law that seems to say i believe that there was a constitutional defect in  sentencing process you seem incredibly harsh that you could have a waiver applicable to discovering whether you had an incompetent where the court has allowed waivers of other very serious constitutional rights waivers of personal jurisdiction waivers of denials of requests to withdraw we use waivers of rights to receive impeach impeachment information under brady certainly if the court were to find that this was an illegal sentence i think the core would read man  hear government would not have proceeded against incompetent to found it nor what the district courts have one comment on that is that the district court did ask for precinct by the government after defense filed their terri in mission farm and defendant had filed a series of voluntary and mission forms discharge papers before and the court was within the discretion to find that the defendant psychotic whatever that means and so the defendant failed to establish that this is a medical diagnosis not simply more of the same more complaining about psychological conditions that may not be true i'll talk a bit about the reasonably accurate estimate of restitution provided as part of a plea and the government believes that the two parts of the  housefull mission and that was not sufficient to trigger a hearing i am not sure the specific answer to that question but i do know in a case cited to by the defendant clark so i the notion is that he walked in and said my complaint is i have major depressive disorder with psychotic features and that's what they wrote down and musings on likely i mean he writes that he has you know panic attacks and so on but he was very unlikely to walk in and say i have major depressive disorder the psychotic features right i don't know how that's like a diagnosis and not only a person's description i mean i understand that there is there is no further verification but that's it's not obviously disconnect single page report no and calculation required indicated that actual loss was estimated to be seventy thousand dollars and so all together we think that if i did have a reasonably accurate were also part of a post on specter report which explained the process that were victim notifications to people whose credit card and other information was found on the defendant's computer during a limiting letter and the specific guidance offered other post on specter and all told the district court did not abuse discretion and finding him accurate and in issuing restitution based on those last summ and sometimes we house folks at local jails they take medical concerns quite seriously given the liability concerns and i think they err on the side of safety and probably seek well that's certainly true but it's not voluntary in this and of caution but just because he says yeah you're on i think these questions go to what the defense this was the defendant's job here to put this before the hour answer these questions and make a record that there was a risk he was not competent i understand you think it was a waiver but if there wasn't a waiver then could a judge have done what what he did if he in fact was incompetent otherwise if he really had  the judge thought he wasn't competent could he nonetheless have gone ahead and decided to question the case on the papers that hearing i think it may have been i don't know the answer i think it may have been an illegal substance because i don't believe a hearing is required on the stocks or  i'm sorry i think i misunderstood the question i mean yes let's assume he was really not a company on the other hand the judge went ahead on the restitution without ever having a hearing the point of so i'm just wondering how the the procedure that was followed here interacts with the companies the court denied it and obviously our position is that we need a hearing today then all of the things that counsel say we should have put in