without explanation contrary factual findings that he wrote that point that were contrary to his findings of the original sentencing hearing most significantly he as the person hearing he found that there was no before the first hearing before trial and actually if you want to point out something about that the court implied in making its ruling both in the first sentencing hearing in the second sentencing hearing that the video showed a transaction and if you look at the trial yes in two thousand was the you know all of that at the time of the first sentence exactly everything that was presented to the judge at the time of the first sentencing remained the same at the time of the second sentencing and that's really where the fundamental error comes from in this  calculation of the amount of the loss is the entitled to go back and in essence wipe the slate clean and do it all over again with regard to rove and con there i don't believe so and here's why because when a person appeals their sentence or no conviction there has to be certain expectations that there won't be arbitrary an arbitrary change in the factual findings so the problem here is the judge didn't explain why the fast were true at the first and i think hearing it conduct for sentencing purposes but clearly there had been a change in the law between the first and second sentencing and clarification by this court and others as to the limitations of the reach of a frenzy and again in the face of a general remain and what's wrong with having the judge basically start all over now understanding that the jury doesn't have to make a finding as to the total amount of loss that he can do and i would agree with you if that was his sole basis for making a ruling or making the factual findings of the amount of lost at the first sentencing hearing but it wasn't significantly at e r one twenty two he said look mr prosecutor even if you're correct on the application of i mean by that is he wanted he only wanted to incline the amount of loss based upon the jury's findings in part based upon the government's failure to explain where that the seven for sixty seven thousand dollars came from and that has not been cleared up between second sentence is not ok i think i understand your argument then so it even though the apprentice you have been resolved you have a fallback position which is you know he was uncomfortable from the beginning right in only equals thirty seven thousand dollars ok but then they talk american express an american express is the amount sixty seven thousand and change and then there's this other problem too because it's clear from the pre sentence report that there are additional credit cards included in the total amount of loss which a which had been presented to the judge or the theory had been presented to the judge at the time of the persons even the judge knew that there were three credit cards charge in the indictment there were five additional credit cards relating to postal employees and then there's  why you are having such a hard time communicating on this he she was confused as i understood it the first time around based on a print in part of the second time around he was told we're sending it back for a general re man don't worry about a print off the table re computer and he does and he comes up with the sixty seven thousand dollars figure so and he explains that the reason he did that is because he was confused on a printed now that's off the board why isn't that sufficient losses with concurrent sentences and the finding that the letter of the declaration that she tried to offer a trial would not qualify as obstruction of justice because it was from some third party i think he did not acknowledge the fact that he had made an error but if you look at the different findings from the first sentencing in the second sentencing i don't believe that the court clearly heard him finding the facts of this court issued its general reno and does not give the district court carte blanche to arbitrarily change the factual findings that it made it invites the government the parties to present additional factual evidence to support a chang