in reaching that conclusion the district court also erroneously in our view invoked the doctrine of intended last argument on appeal turns on the legal significance of facts that were admitted and not contested repaid with a financial loss half on the time before on and on the individuals i believe it would fall in the individual's i don't know that the record informs that answer but those individuals those longer enforce like any other loan that the tribe tribal credit issues those individuals at the moment the funds are transferred had a legal obligation to repay those an obligation you tr alleged victims or all of the individual people who took out loans in this case were tribal members and each and every loan has been collected on this as of the date of the second of individual tribal members being held responsible to pay these loans is that there's a layer of of individuals between muskogee and the tribe this is not a major crimes act case therefore federal jurisdiction is dependent on application of statute eighteen u s c eleven because of the tribes uncontested admission there's no longer a tribal organization that can properly be considered the victim of this and the other primary issue i'd like to say is document intended lost our position and a position that was probably not as well articulated in the briefs as it could have been is that that doctrine is a sentencing idea that goes to amount of loss not to the identity of where you have a record that shows that other individuals are responsible for repaying a loan that those obligations are being enforced that those obligations are the difference between the two you're on or is that the i suppose one is just a more specific articulation of the other the district court relied on the doctrine of intended lost and what your point is i believe there are some cases not this case where you could have a victim of eighteen u s c eleven sixty three that experience no loss that's not the case of the trial then she should have gone to trial and tried to convince a jury that they that the tribes not stick to our position of course try business victim and it ties into the last argument as well because if you follow the money  she was working at the credit union she goes out and finds the borrowers who have no interest in borrowing money or repaying it she tells them they don't have to repay it and if you go from the back way forward you'll see how this stings which is probably the pigeon drop cases that are al a private property to stay in that your own or could certainly be your theory of the facts our theory of the prosecution however is that the distinction again in those old pigeon rock cases where they said it wasn't paint fraud because the deposit what what's the answer to that or the answer is that they did take property of the car they took money that was then the property of the car the answer is your honor is that the borrowers are not to far worse they are agents  back by the tribe not giving them their per capita payments which are the yearly receipts the beach individual tribal member gets from tribal leases and mining and logging and that sort of thing so it's not like these folks are are i'll just respond briefly to one issue raised by mr austin and that was his assertion that it's miss cody wanted to contest these facts and should have won the trial i would just say there are two principles that really deal with that idea the alleged time they were alleged and then after her plea much to everyone's surprise the government's witness an alleged victim stated that they were enforcing these loans and that they were going to make these people pay them back he so if someone you know robs me personally at some point and the police manage to catch them and you have time to paint even act i'm no longer a victim because i got my money back i'm not sure that analogy holds your honor because in this case there's a the question is whether when she did what she did if she was taking her whole money or whether she was taking the money of the individuals who had borrowed from the private least as far back as you have seen with the only question i would agree that that's the most pressing issue you know i would say that i would say that it's hard to discern from the record what her intent is and her family to get the money to use for gambling  whether it's whether she was taking money from the private or from the individuals is really a legal question judge we've never disputed that there is an offense here you just argue on appeal that it's not