admission and didn't look at this is a statement i saw this was an act and that it was shouldn't have been admitted because it was highly prejudicial i guess the question is why shouldn't we look at it as a statement under either one because i guideline level that's at issue here as a lot of the fun it's got a ten level enhancement for happy causing a loss of more than five hundred thousand dollars under their argument that the two thousand and one change should be retroactive that would knock it down a one level to a plus nine if they were sentenced under the current guidelines the post two thousand and one guidelines they would receive a plus fourteen because those guidelines increased  whether that's necessary or merely sufficient in other words if the if it says hello i'm a clarifying amendment we know that's what it is but if it says nothing if it doesn't say i'm substantive or clarifying it's just  said that lost does not for example include interest the victim could have earned the sort of pre judgement interest a change that's a totally new taxed prohibiting interest of any kind finance charges late fees penalties and if there's a circuit split we do have cases that say when there's a circuit split both readings of the existing cry my are reasonable and there's a an adoption of one side of that  simply the reasons were that they were just wanted to make it simpler if you look at it it didn't argue that there was sort of something to difference between the two types of interest just that it was easier to not to take away all the the commission did do that i'm simply basing this on on what i think is a closer reading of hoyle you know i don't want to turn everything on that but i do want to mention that yet another factor whether the commission included not include this amendment in one of the one point ten and that's it that's all we need to know i'm not going that far i'm just saying that that's one of the factors the courts to look at along with the factor that the commission used the language of making a decision along with the on its own case twenty eight of the governments are stripped of records and the court instructed the jury during the course of this trial i mean occasionally asked questions about witness in order to bring out facts which may not be fully covered by the testimony you are not to consider my questioning of a witness even if it me become lengthy as an indication of what i feel about the case in general or the testimony of that witness in particular that we missed in the prefix that was before the trial and that in conjunction with the instruction at the end was even more  indication to the jury that at the judge's questions were not supposed to be taken into account they were the curative instructions and we do have a nice circuit case on that but if you look at the nature of the questioning it appears that the motion there wasn't a new trial motion so and i think defending agrees that there's a player standard here that i think just one question from the court is not really enough to undo a whole jury trial on the show the conjunction with calculation of losses bargained for interest this is not to the body was under a different statutory provision and was interested in the interest was asked having interest in the calculation of loss having to do with a mortgage fraud