please the court i'm karen landau and i represent brian stone and i'll save two minutes from bio the question before this court is whether weather really whether had a legitimate business now there were some false claims and that lost but they were foreigners they were a small subset of the total lost yet the district court held mr stone accountable for the entire last the entire payment i shouldn't call it a loss of eighty eight thousand dollars and the thing is that the insurance company the fire occurred it's an accidental fire there's no evidence that it was an arson so there were there were that the difference between be the difference between a last calculation and restitution which is that you know under the guidelines which we must we focus on the greater of intended or actual  restitution is actual lost it's not oh the insurance company might have might have invoked the word for fraud cost and it's kind of noteworthy because in fact one of the payments for which restitution w ordered the century insurance loss which would pertain to the five hundred and eleven dollars private property the insurance company essentially said yeah we were suspicious about this but it was true and expensive and that's tecate so we pay so i wait so crossreference applied i would have charged i would have challenged intended loss as well but we didn't because there was no format because i think it was i got think that was worth argument but i think the key here is again is restitution is actual losses only so there were he claims there was a claim in there for rental fees for laser hair removal machines and the government presented evidence that in fact they didn't pay for the laser laser hair removal machines therefore there should have was no breakdown in the government submitted the item i was last claims but the client as i recall has actually like the claim made to hartford was greater than eighty eight thousand dollars but they paid out eighty the restitution or is that it to go back to be r was not held accountable for that i was not held accountable for restitution for that i should say ok it was just a day summaries or if it was honestly if it was i didn't challenge it i gree with you that doesn't seem like the just record gave many reasons for there on the causation but so there is no objection i don't know if that's necessary or was it necessary for the just report to go through the  there was no objection well again your honor i would submit the challenge and the pointing out that there wasn't an arsonist one of the fires and the other thing is as to the i can see perhaps not agree with me but that that is i think that's a that's a question the other thing let me let me add that the with regard to the broadway fire houses said well there's an inadequate next us and when you say there's an adequate nexus i think what he's saying is there's not i actually did look at that and my reading of the record is that the marconi i know the precise report says that and that some are but the reading that the amount seemed to show that the marconi fire was included in it and that's why i challenge it in the way that i did it but i did look at that last night actually and i remember going over that when i wrote the brief and i think that the i think what  is the court sent it you know that you know it's possible the probation officer made a mistake but i and i just don't think the change was made i am sure mr halsted correct me if i'm wrong university was greater that's correct your honor it was greater and mr stone did have there is with sentencing evidence that mr stone was trying to contact the landlord of the university property before that property burned as well  but after that we didn't have the same type of evidence of his involvement in the insurance claims as your honour's have seen with marconi and broadway it was in the sentencing records here just to make a to get to something that you're asking about a moment ago it is the case that you know in the sentencing process below there was no argument from the defense trying to break apart different amounts for marconi and broadway it was the arguments were essentially for broadway as ms landau said that there was no nexus and then for marconi that it simply wasn't an arson but the arguments didn't address what was there fraud in those claims and if so was that reasonably foreseeable to mr stone and if so did that cause the insurers to forgo this right they had to deny the claim in its entirety if there was substantial bad faith or fraud in connection with these claims and moving on to the bigger picture issue where we started count the entire not in these insurance company i m's it was in the trial of but it shows that specifically with respect all you had was an insurance claim where there were a variety of different things that they were seeking but when scott johnson who is the investigators state farm found out about the fraud that brian stone was trying to do that and found out that jamal shaheed was involved with this fire and was asking the nominee the owner about the fact that she hated had thirty four dollars prior insurance claims the ultimate effect of all that was state farm only paid out three thousand dollars and that was only for the initial order of the windows and there were no further payments despite everything that they were seeking so i think based on that trial claims but this is way too speculative that there's no evidence that in these particular cases the insurance companies that clause correct there is no direct evidence of that for the other two claims in the sense that they didn't find out about the fraud that it happened there is an interview with the sentry surety vice president of claims where he says we can deny the claim even if there is substantial evidence  the insurance company to forgo this contractual right they have to deny the claim because they gave us fraud and i think i think it's reasonable based on a pile of evidence to say the insurers wouldn't have paid money out if they had known that there was fraud all over these insurance claims on time like happened with the fall of the big pharma but you know obviously the evidence would be much stronger if there was some sort of declaration that we would have been both this clause writing that it's nothing like that that no your honor there isn't that in the records and i don't want to get too far out outside the record here but there are from what you see in the payment there are some instances you can make for example the initial payment on the m asking the nominee about this the fact that he's got thirty four other fire insurance claims and then came down so i think the fair inference from the record that we do have some of the companies didn't know and they can't you know show affirmative things what they would that no the man is necessary that these restitution amounts are supported by the record including the the evidence of the trial what happened with that particular insurance  if you're honest i have no further questions i'm prepared to submit on behalf of the government involved and extend get some more money and it's pointed out it's in the briefs that money was not paid out after the response to those efforts and again as far as the laser hair machines which are part of the marconi fire my understanding is that the the run of the amount was was was what they sought and again there were some there was some evidence that trying to get documentation after the fact to claim the machines themselves but that never happened that didn't come to fruition as far as  again as far as you know the question of what i mean i think the key here again is is to go back to what restitution requires and doesn't wasn't math here i think even if you review for playing her which again i would argue is waived the lawsuit is there simply inadequate evidence to support the amounts impose and the and you know what mr stern should be held liable for other losses that the insurance company thank you your honor it has been submitted