morning me please of course my name is jack kathleen and i'm here for the opponent and defended mr pacheco for our claim for relief is straightforward the court ordered that my client be released pre trial the federal government refused to release him and we asked that the case be dismissed the federal government so they were detain him to imminently deport him all the same if they deport him and remove him from the country they can't proceed on the indictment anyway including immigration must adhere to a pretrial release order under the reform act the this is so even if he has a previous removal order the various supposed to make pretrial detention exception and not the rule in federal criminal proceedings pending proceedings and in criminal proceedings and the immigration and nationality act is aimed at executive officials and their authority america don't think cover completely different things really what i'm asking different said if a person is not a flight risk or a danger the compare for person is a possible flight risk or possible to enter the community and they are a non citizen or non lawful permanent resident and immigration has ten days to pick them up and if they don't do that th notwithstanding and as really apply to all the other laws that there might be but it says notwithstanding other provisions the law about releasing burning and they're really trying to talk about that is congress really addressing the ten days isn't triggered until after the person is released from detention or confinement and then as the court recognizes and truly of the alvarez detention or confinement can only be recently read to mean incarceration or after final judgment which of course has not happened yet in pretrial proceedings even if that we've period we're running during someone's pretrial release from federal criminal proceedings it's not mandatory under either the i know that that person be actually all move away from the united states by leaving on their own voluntarily or by be moved by the federal government physically and the person with the removal order is only not allowed to be released if they have been found removal under certain grounds of criminal remove ability or terrorist group ability out of political in this case immigration regulations further indicate that once the federal executive commits to federal prosecution of a no defines that prejudicial for the united states as having of any criminal case with any course in the united states in less the prosecuting authority consents to you being removed so with that the federal executive and it was not necessary under immigration law we believe that the proper remedy for that for this violation was to dismiss the indictment  indictment to implement a remedy for violation of recognize rights or to deter legal conduct here the federal executive violated my client's rights under the b r a b r e in turn implement his rights of the amendment against excessive bail and numerous district courts have recognized when i say when you have a federal pending pending federal criminal proceeding and ice is moving your client from ice detention facility with their analysis and maybe just say you know i've referenced my earlier statements but is there anything in particular that they ma they interpret it as a solian notice provision and the primary case the district court allowed on a from judge strand in the district of so the same thing and i think that's a problem the the release and turning over the defendant to immigration was not in violation of the order by the district court or by the magistrate judge and fact during the detention hearing when the governor pointed out that the defendant would be detained on an ice detainer defense counsel said that's fine we understand that we've discussed it if they deport him that's the government's choice but we understand what we're doing here and we we in this case because it was not relied upon to detain the defendant i think it also shows generally that congress understood that there are various entities that may have an interest and a person  say the district in minnesota versus the district of iowa come and get this guy if you want to because you've got him on some violation and then you have the the notwithstanding all right nobody comes and picks them up then you have notwithstanding what do you deal we're not going to look at the ice detain or we're not going to look at the reasons that ice may have for detaining we're not going to look at the reasons that the the than the other district federal district court may have for detaining we're going to look at what this presented before us here notwithstanding what might be presented in other courts but what do we have to look at here whether or not he's a risk of flight or a danger to the community here the judge found that point prison which shows that they have a different meaning in the same statute the same code section for detention and confinement versus release from imprisonment so when you look at the tension of confinement th ninety day period can start upon the defendant's release from pretrial custody because you could have the other provisions kicking into gear final border by the immigration judge but the guy might be  where he's not going that order is not going to kick in and tell he's released here we're not waiting for a judgment or release from imprisonment we're waiting for him to release from confinement so there's two different uses while another point that was raised here the departure under a bar to fifteen point two we have a departure control officer if they can stop someone at the border from leaving on their own and two hundred and fifteen three talks about ways in which the departure control officer can stop someone at the border the departure control officer is not sure that the person is leaving voluntarily again crossing the border maybe they're being kidnapped maybe there's some reason they want to hold them it says the the all this doesn't apply though if somebody is leaving under an order of departure they have a voluntary departure so when you're an immigration court they basically have two ways there are many have to leave under this order of removal and they call that the bollen terry departure that is pacifically exempted and so this we don't have this situation here because our person is not now there are ways they can kind of try and get them to come out earlier by working what the authorities but it says once you're out we can remove you'll thank you and it says parole supervised release probation or possibility of rest or further imprisonment is not a reason to defer removal so your gratian is going to kick them out whether or not there's no provision there for the prosecuting authority to argument so far for pretext bad faith or something like that this terminations and here without a prior removal or reinstated order removal mandatory detention the statute shows they're going to kick them out whether out i asked for it or not the west was littered with cases of district court cases where prosecutors are dismissing cases because they've been removed ah you might have some bad faith now if i had think the bad faith would be if i kept him here somehow to avoid you know if i could delay deportation well then i might be looking like i'm using i'm going around the bail reform act here i have no way to stop it mr half way we're back to you