i'd like to begin unless the court wants to jump then but i'd like to find what the battle lines are in this particular appeal around the motion for a new trial and whether the district court at the discretion and then i'm the defendant's motion for a new trial gravatt was convicted of the fraud scheme charging him with not performing laser eye surgery on two particular patients that he built to medicare although he was also acquitted of not performing those is that the government's response to the various claims and objections registered below in district court and the government's response is to most of our claims on appeal it's unusual because i would submit to this court that often times how lengthy surgeries that would have been necessary the work actually been done that was jury had some corroborating testimony from other sources besides the government's expert physician the problem with  not to consider all of that evidence collectively in determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction i understand your argument with regard to the battle of the experts right and i think it's a it's a and i want to back up his testimony it was stuff like that should have been done before trial for why this is not really discovery i would respect sitting there for five years i would respectfully disagree simply because the end to graham had not been done i agree with you that i'm speculating i agree with you that i'm speculating as to as to you know why didn't occur but i'm just suggesting to your honor that when you look at what the impact the substance of the impact if it's true on concession which i think is the correct view of the law that on a motion for a new trial the trial judge has to look at all of the evidence and i don't think it's fair to say that the only evidence on which the jury convicted dr here  whether let's make quite a point at trial that there was a surprising similarity with regard to the power settings on the machine and all the treatment notes and i and our response to that is is that was true for whether he did and all of a sudden all those counts that charged subsequent think villains are now gone from the jury's consideration and i think that throws a huge range in the government's machine here because now we've got a jury that is theoretically only considering for purposes of guilt or innocence that the parents with regard to services now before and again he makes all the necessary findings and he makes them a later time but we have cases so you have to do these you have to find that the objections made at the time of sentencing and you see that so or because that that elaboration was ok well it certainly took the position that it would have been nice if the court had made findings of the time there was no reason that the elaboration the findings that were made later could be considered there is an overlap here because both seem purport to be a claim on hicks for reimbursement for services that your client alleged  if you look at this under the motive scheme to defraud in order to maximize profits it's the same motive that's driving each of the two subsets to bill for services that were not in fact rendered in order to maximize doesn't even cross examined dr gadabout about all these falsified records that are now suddenly relevance of proving his project on time it's never mentioned again your honor now only can't mention it because the judges determined that there wasn't enough evidence on