fidelity count to buy a certified check it wells fargo to pay his bail that's correct was there any requirement or anything in the record that the court required a certified check to pay his bail they wouldn't take his personal check acrimony order they will not accept a personal track or cash and that's available on the district court website as well as certainly the government did not provide any evidence to prove the contrary in fact they rely on the fact that fidelity to the court he starts off with wells fargo and converts it into a into a cashier's check and then you know it's the right he would then have a good opportunity to explain the look he had to do that because they wouldn't take the  there and said he was doing that because that's the easiest and fastest way to get the money because he can then simply walk over to us for go where the money is felt part of the process to get the money out of the account  snyder did was saved additional resources and without having to do two different sensing hearings she had i single sensing here and gave what she believed to be a death sentence by giving credit for acceptance believe that it was a requirement that it's they be joints and then group but this court's decision in defterios i don't believe says that it seems to suggest that it's permissible for the cases them just as you get about money laundering if you're right on that and we reverse on the money laundering count what will that do to his sentence hell how much is it appreciably affected at all it goes appreciably affected your energy company is being that it does not appear to be on the face of the check itself i don't have in front of me there may have been in fact the attachment to the track that may account number for the energy capital account so it does refer back to if one had to have this check one would see that he had an account at the deli and what that number was with regard to the issue point and then goes on to explain why i believe that this is the point so i don't believe that there is anything in the rocker that would suggest that a check this official check from fidelity remember this is not his check writing privileges but this is one that he has to go phones correct it would have shown that he had an account at fidelity and that was where the money was coming from and obviously that would have raised unstirred are impressed as a matter of fact the only reason that we found out about the fact that and remember the timing of these events he's deposited in a stolen forged sixty four thousand dollars check and at that the girl of the account not more than a week or so before he gets arrested in needs to post bail he's not particularly interested in the government knowing that there's another fraud going on involving energy capital which is the subject of the arrest that he's already in the dock for that those funds are out there and that he crimes and there certainly was sufficient evidence for judge snyder to find that he did intend to conceal the provenance of the funds i judge gould referred to the tuttle case and the fact that this and so forth i believe under this court's precedents it just doesn't make any difference because the intent to conceal is the intention can steal the source of the funds not the identity of the particular individual responsibility of the charges in that case well i'm not suggesting that she could not have i guess what i wanted to say was there's an argument that's raised in the briefs as to whether or not what the factual state of the record was this to whether or not he accepted responsibility in one case accepted responsibility and the other case i believe that the record is clear that he did not accept responsibility in the fidelity case not only just as a factual matter because he wants a trial he continues to litigat sufficiency of evidence on appeal with regard to those convictions but if one looks at the district court statements and context it's clear that she sang she's found that he's accepted responsibility for boss but not for allen and so then the question becomes how do those cases dad groups because under this court's then case if one does not accept responsibility for all the counts of conviction then an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is not appropriate so the question becomes should they be grouped or not grouped and there are cases in the reasons that the government has cited in its brief there was a legal obligation for those cases to be groups because i think it was a case where he pled to one count of an indictment but not the other candidate that is correct in this case you have two separate invaders so his plea of guilty to one of them saves you a trial that's correct but isn't that a big difference between that and again ok it's a difference in the sense that it's not simple panel of the jury didn't have to put on another trial they didn't occupy another courtroom  trial he still would get a benefit because the way that it was argued to the district court by the defendant himself was that these cases should be group because that way he would be absolutely assured of the fact that the judge  of it constructive it would all be concurrent and the way it ended up is he basically got the boss case for free there was no incremental adjustment at all which the guidelines to just should be an incremental adjustment when there are two separate courses just criminal conduct over a different span of time and if one reads section three d and section five g together when sentences imposed for a separate matters at the same time especially in a fraud matter where the last is what determines that there is a small incremental adjustment upward and the defendant was obviously interested in only seeing that small incremental adjustment as opposed to the possibility of there being concurrent time so the guidelines account for the fact that there was an acceptance of responsibility that the two matters would be put together so the defendant gets some benefit for it but the way that the