good morning your honor to me please the court order i'm here to represent mr hattaway who as the court knows having read our brief did not make an argument against restitution in terms of the claims that we' order to the probation officer in writing in march two thousand and seventeen in this sole jepson was wrong in that the defense counsel objected to the inclusion reimbursement for counseling that was wrong on its face that objection was because counseling these are clearly authorized by three six six three eight b two i would suggest that in the context of this out the counsel's incorrect objection and also to the fact that mr hopper waited and make any statements in selby and your honor my counsel's made objections to sentencing also in light of the fact that the trial judge summer leora lee accepted the probation officers calculation restitution well the judges entitled to do that if there are no objections and objections were invited in writing they were lodged and did not include the ones you're making now and the court did what we have in courage to courts to do that at sentencing which is to button down that issue in the hearing which the court did here by giving an opportunity to expand on the written objections and and that was expressly waived so why shouldn't this be construed as a way for judge cites i would suggest that there is no strategic there's a really good strategic reason we're talking about three thousand dollars total and for a defendant in your client's position who comes before the court as a really bad actor to quibble over a three thousand dollars bill for the victims care in the three months after she escaped his custody where he repeatedly sexually assaulted her is a really good strategic reason to give up these arguments and that he should have given up the other argument as well does not give you a basis to get around waiver and he made a point i mean all of this was contained in one paragraph so i mean have if we adopted your position wouldn't a district judge have to go in every single sentencing a line by line through every single thing in the p s r and say ok are you objecting to this i don't see any way around that if you if we say that this can be reviewed your honor reviewing the record i just looked at the context of these objections and i did see an error according to the law here in the seventh circuit in that the objection on its face that was made by counsel on its face was incorrect that suggests to me that there was a fortune for for children and then a waiver in that there was a negligent failure to assert a right that mr hathaway granted he was convicted of some horrible things but he failed to negligently as from our precedent but i don't think what you're arguing it just happens all the time that the lawyer says you know here's something in the p s or we don't demand that it be proved and the judge says fine i'm taking that as a given what i'm saying you're right because that's all that happened here there was something that might have been proved it was not in fact proved because nobody wanted to prove honor what i'm suggesting is that as defense attorneys and government attorneys we have a responsibility at the just a pretty level to at least read the rules and their records suggest here that counsel for mr hopper way did not read the victim in restitution act and even though it is only three thousand dollars in the criminal conduct is extraordinary and a jury convicted mr hof we have that the restitution act or excuse me the and the are a is part and parcel of the judgment and commitment order and the attorney's written objection that asked for there to be no reimbursement required for counseling suggests that the end the ira was not reviewed by counsel well you can make the opposite argument the fact that he did that he objected to one part of this cons i didn't see that in the record your honor we did get to the point where there was error in terms of i would like to briefly address the travel costs it in focusing on how the tragic loss to california would not qualify under the n b r a the testimony of the victim of trial was that i was angry at my father this is around page six zero five to six zero six i don't think you'd win that on clear air i just don't think we should get to two that it seemed to me that what the district judge i think was a district judge found was that there was every there was good reason to try to keep her away because this guy still wasn't under arrest and he would go back to south carolina again your honor i'm sorry the district judge did not make those statements at sentencing but he just accepted what the probation officer submitted right so your burden is plain there and there is not an error so obvious that the district court was studio found to recognize it can self and correct its nor was this is sort of an error that is so substantial i agree just that it brings scandal to the district court's proceedings in our brief we argued your honor is as you know that there was no need to travel to california  teenager the father test by not he did not testify right after the merits argument but you know if it had been raised might have been duly considered and either accepted or rejected or here on plane air review and there is sense true obvious error that the district court would have been duty bound to recognize it himself and correct it that that's the shorthand way of stating what it means to have a plain error and then we also have the second question about whether we should exercise her discretion to contest it or to correct it i should say by ordering a remained and a do over and there is nothing here that would warrant that respectfully disagree  what's the basis for that i didn't see any i believe that the testimony at trial indicates that as i said that this was a family decision that had nothing to do with you know proximately caused by the defendant's conduct that there was a difficult relationship between the father in the daughter that started well before the conduct of the defendant this is from the record and that that's the sort of factual deficiency that you would expect there to be some  argument about unless it's some glaring legal error or glaring factual deficiency there's arguments to be made on both sides about the recoverability of these offenses but these items of restitution and because there's arguments on both sides you feel plainer review before we even get to the question about whether it implicates substantial rights ok your honor i have well in inch are you asking me to answer whether that is his rights or substantially impacted right i would say that but for the air heat a different result would have occurred that's not good enough for affecting substantial rights we have the discretion to correct a plain error you have to make a higher or satisfy a higher burden assessed to bring disrepute to the proceedings requiring him to pay three thousand dollars in restitution for this kind of crime hardly brings disrepute to these proceedings and is different in the context of who he is somebody who was not a very high level in the navy for twenty one years making under sixty thousand dollars  with with four children and also considering that he was the sole support for his family the three hundred dollars that the father used as his estimate for what it cost him to go to illinois to retrieve right what would you say there had to feel here if you're saying there was you are saying they did that the district judge then would have to line by line f i don't mean to suggest that judge tell me what you think could have been in this case my concern was with the on its face of incorrect in objection so i was thinking about evidence on a different day counsel had had made a suppression argument report regarding evidence that was obtained on a previous or later date but ruled twelve came into play and  so the defendant was not able to have an appeal even though it was found that he had forfeited the argument he had put forward an argument about a suppression but two different evidence and a different day he was not allowed to successfully or wasn't able successfully argue the appeal because he couldn't show good reason for failing to argue against suppression of the other so i'm saying that the way this happened just a quick letter apparently in march twenty seventh team from counsel stating we object the inclusion of one thousand and eighty nine dollars suggest that perhaps the defendant even though it is a lower amount in the context of the crime the defendant was improperly advised i don't mean to suggest ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal at the sentencing hearing you are correct but not what you said earlier in terms of my thinking that