clear that he was only meeting those facts necessary to the underlying offenses the money laundering the bank fraud and the others equally clear or specifically clear that he was not admitting anything to do with the amount of l that a higher standard of proof is required on those unhandsome and then the normal preponderance of the evidence because of the impact of those enhanced meant on his overall sentence the court imposing is that the application of the guidelines in the state of washington not the federal guidelines was unconstitutional for to read not the guidelines themselves but the application because the fifth opposed upon him without finding by a jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt but you know clearly would not raise below ok let me ask you this i'm a little confused about what what you did argue below my impression is that you would tack the a level level of government on the bank fraud for the last between eight hundred thousand or one point five million and ironic i think we attack both crime here on the two sources of the sentence here the bank fraud and the argue if you're right about the bank fraud should have gotten the eleven level adjustment of the bank fraud remains the same and i don't see how it would change the sentencing even if you're right now they ar proof about the amount of loss so there were certainly discussion and defense counsel at the time argued that it wasn't sufficient to prove you both that the higher standard of proof is required and that it was insufficient to establish relevant but actually pleaded guilty to there i'm not sure what that is your honor i think it's one or two but even that's seventy thousand if you look at it there's overlap for instance he takes money out of an account one day and deposits in another account the next day that's the same money but it's added together in the end the end that they get to the seventy thousand so i think there's a little room there are going to even what he admitted was a certain amount of money but it's certainly arguable that he's admitted to the seventy thousand dollars is the argument by by that amount that could make a difference and it could make a difference but it doesn't go to the fundamental argument which is what whether all the rest of the enhanced are constitutional under difference it makes if the money laundering calculation is correct which does not seem to have been attacked this to me again no likely issues i agree with that because the court did assign dispense alternately based upon the higher offense which was money laundering and my reading the record correctly that the only attack on the calculation is with respect to the bank fraud or not the money laundering well the defendants argument of sentencing wasn't exactly clear on that point the defendant was attacking the last thing here and the guidelines that controlled november two thousand and time required that the last figure for money laundering goes to the same money laundering or scares me a loss niggers into a one point one the controlled fraud so the court created rather the court sent the defendant on the money laundering count based upon that same table but made the same findings regarding loss so at the end of the day the last amount was determined under the fraud guideline for money laundering but the  one talking about the quantum approve i'm talking about the different elements of proof well you not attacking the accuracy of the calculation for money laundering as i understand the record i did with all due respect i believe he was attacking the accuracy because the defendant because the argument was the last came from others and one hundred fifty thousand dollars admitted for in the indictment ok but nonetheless it would be that it is the government's position that there was substantial evidence introduced at the hearing by way of the case agents who testified of their own percipient knowledge that they had interviewed victims that they had seen the documents and that they put them together and connected them to the defendant both with regard to the fraud and the money laundering offenses so it was not a situation where the defendant lacked an opportunity to know exactly where the evidence came from it was not a situation in many of the cases that the defendant relied upon where there was insufficient proof under any standard determine from where the loss was derived so i think the summary ought to be smaller than anything in the in the teller's free where the money laundering calculation is challenged not specifically in that respect that no matter whether you were to follow a money laundering or bank fraud you'd come out of the end of the day the same way e counts and counts trial seventeen was about seventy eight thousand so i set forth there that amount of loss had been imposed and then the rest of the argument just talks about amount of loss generically but i certainly did raise that the amount of lost had impacted the money laundering and substance accounts for you we cite as a fact that what was alleged in the indictment i was having a hard time finding any argument there was some defect in the money laundering calculation well the better practice would have been in the next paragraph where i specifically identified the impact on the bank by case i should have said that is that it identified the impact on the money like case but the whole thrust of the attack was on