the district court when it read the instructions did not even include that language rather it described the overall way in which this scheme function that allowed the because it didn't have any properly interest in any funds the funds that were on alleged to have been the purpose of the scheme with those of the children occurred in which an indictment on ledge and intend a scheme to deprive a certain class of people of their property it turned out to trial that what was proven was a different class of people of their property and for that reason the conviction had to be reversed for insufficient evidence if in this case the issue is  be subject to that indictment the instruction never told the jury that it needed to find that there was an intent to defraud children of  to assuming of course nor did they belong to the bankruptcy court the theory that a bankruptcy court was a victim here is absolutely not supportable by any stretch of imagination bond bought some of his passport in order to pass himself off as mr bond here the record clearly shows that in every instance not only did the child support debtors all through wise use of their identification but mr law there is made it clear that it was he not they who were who was submitting the information i hear and one of the doubters testified essentially that mr ever called home and testified that mr valdes helped him to cheat on a test that is not had authorized and deliberately authorized mr valdez to act as a petition preparer although he was not authorized to do so they authorized him to use their identity there was therefor mistake can be ordered to the bankruptcy court as a matter of law and that is because the bankruptcy court was not the objective of any scheme to deprive it of money or sees fit if it's collect the mo but it is not a matter of restitution as a result of the process alleged in this are there any questions argued in closing argument counsel does make selective citations of the closing argument but the government consistently argued the same theory i closing argument and counsel's argument regarding the jury instructions wait before you get to that so if these are not under storage what do you make of what i take to be the argument that delay is different than ultimately depriving of property well there's two intent was to permanently stop the collections not permanently stopped but delayed the collection that was much more that was my question i thought i thought your sister was arguing that there was no permanent deprivation obstructing assume his collection efforts by using that automatic state the fact that this was a temporary relief because at the end of the day if the debtor didn't stay current with their payments or didn't file continue repairmen under the chapter thirteen bankruptcy that decision would be dismissed doesn't mean or doesn't negate the defendant's intent in this case that the government proved that he was finally petitions for the purpose of obstructing and delaying as soon as collection efforts because it was collections efforts in these cases were already  there were civil contempt proceedings his clients were either in jail or they were facing incarceration because of the civil contempt proceedings and he filed these bankruptcy petitions to get the state so that if you get out of jail without the collection so you did tell me that and not only the government because the court read the back on allegations and what instructing the jury on the bankruptcy fraud the court said on a scheme significantly as charged in the indictment and then the court proceeded to read puerto rico and child support when the fisheries filed or cause to be filed a bankruptcy petition so the jury didn't have to remember that from reading the indictment the jury had that before them for making his decision and determination of every single count  information he thought of attorney who was going to file his petition and that's why he provided that information and both letters testified will set it up and say i'm calling figure out a lot testify that they didn't consent to the find and taking the credit behalf even if they had voluntarily given some of the information the crate advised foundation could not have issued certificates of compliance with credit counseling if they had if you had known that the debtors hadn't taken the course foundation representative and it's also in the law section one hundred nine of title eleven that it is the council levy that has to take the credit counseling so there could be no lawful authority on the part of that is to use that name or information or to pass  self off as the person receiving the credit counseling z r have question on that so there's the evidence supported conclusion that the defendant here was passing himself off yes your hon because i did minimal he was telling the clients the answer so he's passing himself off as the person that is providing the answer to the questions the credit advisers foundation thought that those answers that were provided to it in the ways that was a necessary part of getting the counseling were given by the debtors but in fact those answers at a minimum or the information came from my desk so he's packing himself off as the person that is getting credit counseling is the person that is taking back with th when it could've simply find him on that amount because he had the statutory powers impose a fine and that amount he doesn't contest the amount or how it was calculated or the fact that the court has the authority to impose a fine just the fact that the court called bankruptcy court if imposed as a fine it would not matter the fact that the court called it a restitution or a fine if this court were to remarry and so the district court can clarify or simply amend the order so that it's fine the money could still go under one bankruptcy petition preparer who fails to comply with the provisions of this section may be fined and then it says no more than five hundred for each failure and then it provides for trouble fines and the like it doesn't seem to limit itself to whether job and when the government at sentencing addressed the issue of the bankruptcy court but if that was the bankruptcy court was entitled to make a victim impact because the evidence established at trial and a minimum sentencing showed that but this abuse the bankruptcy court system cops resources so they were illegitimate victim what was the amount of restitution the amount of the restitution was five hundred thirteen thousand two hundred dollars was that come from the police on the total amount of the fraud it was not has nothing to do with the part of the in the government's case yes you do if the government included and then the way the bankruptcy court calculate it was they had thirty one petitions that they had on the five and the two additional in two separate orders and they find him five hundred dollars per petition and then they find him five hundred the truth is your honor nobody argued this at trial because i didn't contest it and write your honor so in this case because the bankruptcy court cases were closed and they had determined that by this oath that amount of five proceedings and right now they aren't open so he's not subject to