party i understand you disagree with the district court's calculation of a loss amount and as soon as a lawyer does that i want to go and look and see what the district court said about why calculated what it calculated rule thirty requires that to be in and fix to the brief but i couldn't find it in fact none of the district court's findings is in your brief where do i go to find that judge i help from the record i quarter with respect to what the judge found might be more than one then you have to include them all it doesn't mean you include none of them yes ron are i understand what what i attempted to do is essentially outline essentially you know the rule doesn't allow you to essentially outline you have to provide us with verbatim copies of the district court's reasons which would include transcript i mean if we had uttered an oral that you have to give us the district court's findings in the district courts words not what counsel chooses to extort from other suit your honor and that the problem is i mean i guess i will just pile on then we'll have to hear what to do about this your certificate of compliance says that you included all materials required by parts a and b of circuit rule thirty and that actually goes on to say including copy of the oral rulings in the case and it's hard for me to believe that you read circuit rule thirty before you wrote this down because i just don't see how it could be misunderstood to allow you to just to satisfy that obligation through summaries and in the brief me what we're doing we're reviewing what a a district court did and so step one is to see what did they just record it what was what were they just records reasons sometimes as an early argument today maybe they just record is fairly cursory and it's explanations sometimes just records right forty five page opinions you never know different things happen that we need to see what the district court did before we can move ahead with our role and i apologize i thought by citing now from the transcript specific you know what the you can't have read the rule if you thought that i don't know how you can certify that you complied with the rule not excerpts from them not my take on them i understand your honor and in the past in my experience there is usually a order or at least findings that i could attach to that a part of the record in this particular case there were there was no there is a transcript so you have you have to do the digging it's really we we have a lot of reading to do and we are not we have said in our circuit rules that this is an obligation of counsel that we will we will discuss amongst it's exactly the process the judge use here judge says i'm not done with restitution yet i'm going to issue a later order does issue a later order it's exactly like manrique well my understanding is it's not it wasn't that if there was going to have a there is a provision in the civil war that not in the criminal rules from appealing for appealing from an order after its announcement but before its formal entry but the judgement of terms of the judgement have to be announced but not entered for that term springing appeal to work but otherwise the rule is judgement st appeal later it's really simple right i mean just think of it from a common sense point if you you have to have the ruling in place before you even know whether you want to appeal from it's supposed to restitution order after the judge held that supplemental hearing that turned out to be the thirteen thousand dollars some that you seem to concede was would have been payable but maybe would have decided to appeal that you know we don't know you have to have the order st then the appeal even the springing forward situations it's just that sometimes you know they'll be a conviction you want to appeal certain parts of that and then sentence comes  later i think actually they amended the rules even for the criminal side that doesn't matter i mean the point is you need to know what you're appealing from you can't just otherwise you file a notice of appeal the day trial began say you know fill in the blanks later and i understand that and that's not what happened in this in this case as you see from the record the judge actually found a restitution amount what he wanted he said and there was an issue of the of the amount that calculated to force him out the only question was is whether or not it was going to be a specific unlike america where there was no decision at all range you can only appeal from a judgment and the judgment was this range this was what judgment was not when when the judge finally entered the nd order that you should have sil appeal from the judge comes up with very specific numbers actually corrects one of them because of the golf cart later that he comes up with very well you know one hundred and sixty three thousand one hundred and thirty dollars thirty cents that's a number it's an amount that somebody can pay it's not always somewhere between fifty and one hundred and fifty that you know it's a number it's an obligation to judgments and objects of monetary obligation to the united states that will stay with this person time he wait for this supplemental process just because it's briefs instead of showing up in court for an oral hearing surely can't be the difference i think that's a significant  a finding within a range and says i want to just brief it so that i can essentially determine what dispute is but this i'm out i'm going to find and so he opposed the sentence based on the amount that it was he found the sentence that was imposed was in reliance on the know foreseeable to the defendant that the park district would suffer a loss from his actions and you know we have the problem of not being directed to the portion of the transcript that matters for this purpose but let's say that the judge in fact doesn't spell out on the record how the defendants and let's assume you lose on your relevant conduct challenge how the defendant's actions of you know having the pond built on his house and ordering the boots etc etc taking the ticket entry money all of that stuff   core pointed out there's two parts of the causation there's the but for causation that this not occur the last one occurred and then there's the proximate cause causation we're not arguing that if you believe that this was a theft and that the stuff occur clearly proximate cause to the loss but there's no evidence that there was a theft or so the question becomes that was the question becomes relevant conduct right like that's just that's just repackaging your argument that this shouldn't have been treated as relevant conduct in terms of causation because your argument is really none of this should have been treated as relevant conduct because he didn't steal there wasn't sufficient evidence that he did these things that credit card can collation and then my dad if that is correct that was our position from the beginning and that was agreement and that was part of the facts and that was the evidence as well and that was the whole issue with respect to the testimony that was provided because clearly the our position is that the government can make their position as they did in the in front of the grand jury they could make their position it since it is much but when the court in the district court decides to adopt whatever those findings are they look at that they look at the evidence that's presented at that time and it's not just simply the government's recitation of their believing of the facts well they have evidence though i mean and it's a preponderance standard and i have to say their argument left me with the thought that you were essentially saying the worse the records somebody keef's the more likely they are to escape arrest because certainly mr collins wasn't on and a plus record keeping plan i mean it's just not that but that's not the way it works i mean the government isn't title and they just records in time even for restitution  estimates as long as it's an estimate of actual loss not just intended loss and the government explains the relation between the guidelines calculation the restitution calculation on the basis that this happens to prepare financial statements or losses and say simply because these books were missing we're going to say these are losses as opposed to anyone because of any sort of record of any prior that's what i mean it's gets down to the quality of the records district and foundation and then applying other related offense level so your that so the government is equal footing i'll take the pond liner that he that he spends three thousand and eight dollars on this thing and fund raising arm for the park district that provided scholarships for littleton so they they had a common purpose in many respects so you're saying that in this particular instance the gain to him in the loss to the victims is the same fest ticket sales so the gate clicker thinks that nine thousand four hundred and fifty three people answered collins estimates the sales even higher than that and nine thousand nine hundred but the barbecue fest financial summary lists six thousand eight hundred and seventy dollars and the government estimates are of an average price of eighteen dollars a ticket but they use his estimate as i see it at the bay as the basis of this not the clicker estimate it comes out to a lower number of you using his estimate it comes out to fifty four thousand eight hundred and ninety nine if you use his use a clicker number it's only thirty eight thousand for ninety four so  objection he did not raise that objection and at that point government counsel noted that there were multiple there were a couple of outstanding objections asked mr collins and defense counsel if there's any more they said that they did not want to and then actually government counsel specifically said what about this objection as to the discrepancy between the cash collected and that and again they affirmatively said they had no further objections so we would be that as government that they had no further so it was so we believe any challenge that is we have done that basis but i mean so it's relevant both to the ten level and handsome and under the guidelines ultimately i guess cumulatively it wouldn't be relevant to you were otherwise revolving on you were relying on the lower number of click well the higher number of clicks so it was so i think the government tried to sue the government well for background barbecue fest hired a company called all but when you look at the finances he's saying it's only six thousand dollars something and that there was only so much cash collected as a result of that so when law enforcement was trying to figure out exactly how much was missing  they decided to look at the app but they came up with a conservative estimate of take it i believe the thursday night tickets for barbecue fast which was a three day about fifteen dollars and the friday and saturday night take it for twenty dollars and then there were also be a tickets available for thirty five dollars so they came up with this idea of eighteen dollars per ticket tried to look at the amount of tickets mr collins reported being sold and the amount of people who appeared to go through the gate per d day that some people purchased tickets didn't go on the theory that some people who purchased tickets didn't show up that night well i think that there was about a three thousand per and difference between the number of people that mr ticket that's where you get the fifty four thousand eight hundred and ninety nine dollars so your problem with looking receipts is that that's precisely because this is going around tubs of cash yes that's correct your honor we had testimony at the sentencing hearing reporting that cash and he with that either take all or part of this money say it has been paid to certain vendors for r p fast for instance and then he would keep some of it himself so as a result of the sort of  collins had there were outstanding payments to vendors that appeared to have been paid but had not because mr collins had stolen all or part of the payments so this resulted among other that's in the park district  saying from their words light companies like that and received assurances that proceeds from these contracts could use to pay back the loan well of course instead because there's so much money missing from the park district proceeds from these contracts start mr collins did not accept or his conduct and i think that's something that is clear really throughout the case not only did it right after mr collins entered his plea of guilty he attempted to withdraw it and going against his acceptance of risk and also allocution matter if you look at his allocution letter and basically reads as a list of his accomplishments park district he denies nearly all of the offense conduct except for the kickback payments  processing role that the government raised and as you have here what's the argument that it's jurisdictional did his brief not serve as a functional notice of appeal well i'm thirty seven  but who cares right if it's a mandatory rule when it's invoked it has to be enforced and it's been invoked well we think here it makes sense for a number of reasons to view this court as not having defendants or could you explain what difference it makes in this case your what you've shared a couple of times as we would like an advisory opinion on what you do in some other case could you explain what difference it makes in this case is that the logic of the reasoning behind each objection that court addressed the same way there's no reason to keep arguing the same thing to get the same masseur over and over again and that's where we were at the very end and so the question becomes i forfeit because i refused to make an oral statement or simply say we're not withdrawing any of them my understanding is that if different to your point is that it was covered it wasn't a new point yes ok and the only other issue judge is this question about the county and i think you raise and i think it's an important point the issue with the county with the d j amusements is how we determine the number of people were there but but this is an estimate there at the clicker is a way of measuring crowds i mean that's where something along those lines it would certainly make a difference in his restitution obligation if that isn't off the table altogether because of the memory case i will note that the just in that connection that the district court's st judgment page eighty five of your appendix on the line restitution has dollars and then in all capital letters reserved so i just don't know how that doesn't fit memory came yes  thank you very much we will take that case under advisement