argument in united states versus pulled with the court's permission i'd like to reserve one minute of rebuttal that's fine thank you mr a thank you multiple bail applications before the district court and this court mr prata sits in jail despite pretrial services unwavering position that he should be released on bail and what  t of a single united states a citizen with no children sits in jail because after losing his business and not being able to pay his rent he took a temporary job in georgia supervising the renovation of an apartment matters that were pending not pending he has a conditional discharge out of new york state court which was related to a misdemeanor assault and an open tax matter was a conditional discharge on a tax matter that there has been no it's it's still ongoing if you will receive yes he he pled guilty has a conditional discharge you receive a non criminal record as a result of that  the court relied on those arrests in fact we have no problem if they want to rely on that because in fact mr pearl to traveled during the tax case to the dominican republic with judge carroll's consent they gave him his passport he went to the dominican republic multiple times to visit his dying father his father who has died while he was sitting in the m c c during this case he traveled he returned i said to judge force in the lower court she need not look anywhere else if you want to see if mr prosser respects the authority of the court he returned in fact the government conceded there's a difference in the exposure in the state proceeding in this case right here  nine years so there was greater incentive to flee yes judge i would think that's right he was still facing potential state prison time in the state case a person never had never done any jail time in his life so that was signify cannot a misdemeanor no is a felony is a felony matter judge karen was a sitting supreme court judge he was indicted in that matter and in fact it was going to be resolved with a conditional discharge non criminal record it relates to him paying back taxes and so he was facing exposure and you're right your honor he faces significant exposure under the guidelines but but first that does not mean simply we can point to to how much exposure t defendant has to say that he is not entitled to bail we're not asking for him to be released on his own recognizance we never have we have always argued that we simply want a reasonable bail package that would be difficult for the family to make but not on attainable what yesterday and appeal from there this is judge what's happened since we first rejected your first if you so the original rejection that the summary order indicated that judge force order was affirmed without prejudice to renewal should for example the defendant want to provide proof that he was working in georgia as well as an appraisal report i went back before  judge forrest as soon as i could with in fact that evidence i provided the court with over three hundred pages of e mail evidence that she has since criticized as redundant redundant would have been the over one thousand e mails i could have produced that established that mr prata was intricately involved in the project down in georgia in fact that he was working on american to you to answer questions could thank you judge forrest in the original bail application her biggest critique of us in was that we did not prove that he was working in georgia and i proved it i proved it the government conceded that is not an issue anymore and i also proved that his sister's property is not encumbered by liens as she had speculated before and so since that applet here in new york and florida property yes it is in new york and so since the  we had a renewed bail application the government had shifted its theory is now no longer soley flight it is now seeking to tear it was seeking detention based on flight and danger to the community because it had a because the money was paid back to you correct correct partially that because he said that in a joint bank account account that they both have authority to utilize he had engaged in one hundred thousand dollars in authorized expenses they pulled back off of that and now have said twenty nine thousand judge forrest wanted a hearing to hear from mr gager the government chose not to call mr gago we welcome to that because as we have proffered all along he was working and he was working on a significant project a project that the district court has criticized and belittled that a project that was going to potentially yield over four million dollars in profit to us a management a portion of it please the court my name is lauren sure and i'm an assistant u s attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the united states on this appeal and i represented the united states in the bill proceeding below judge forrest did not air particularly clearly er in finding that the defendant posed a serious risk of flight and a danger to the community based on the record before the court also did not air in considering alternative conditions to release and finding that there are no conditions or  combination of conditions that would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant or the safety of the community judge forrest considered all of the evidence before her in this new it does seem that there's been a shifting target here that were presented to the government new facts that the government did not have did not know of at the time that it made its first detention argument on the basis flight at the time after the case was  defendant are should say the case was affirmed by your by this court the defendant filed a new bell application and the government continued to pursue an argument based on flight risk of flight but in addition based on the evidence that was put forward by the defendant added a second alternative argument danger to the community we continued to meet the nonpayment of the what has been correct it was both the nonpayment of the loan and the misuse of funds from the defendant employer information that the defendant provided information that the defendant did not previously provide in prior bail proceedings the e mails that were provided to the court into the government the government then investigated and looked into that employment spoke with the employer reviewed the e mails reviewed bank statements and based on that information the government continued to argue that the defendant remained a flight risk because simply simply working in georgia the government's miss does not and the inquiry as to whether the defendants a flight risk and in addition t government argued that the defendant pose a danger to the community as your honor noted because we learned through our investigation that the defendant was misusing funds that were put into that bank account by the defendant employer mr and also that the defendant failed to pay back a loan that mr gager provided to him that was collateralized by the liquor store that was owned by his sister which we would note is very similar to the scheme that the defendant used in actually the target crime here based on that information based on the fact that we believe he was engaging in a continuing fraud while he was living in georgia and i would note that he was on some state probationary sentence which requires him not to commit any further crimes we argued for danger to the community based on that new evidence what's it was it was the tax charge that mr castro noted to before the defendant had a conditional discharge which required him to comply with certain terms of release which included not to you know comply with the law and not to commit any further crimes i don't know that offhand but i do know that it was in place while he was in georgia he was continuing to appear on sentence on that proceeding i should note in in new york he paid off some of those taxes that were due and so he was subject to those conditions while he was residing in for in georgia in the fall of tw and let me a do them in reverse order is the probationary sentence issue number one for government just conceded that he made court appearances in furtherance of that proceeding so he is coming back and forth to court own name and appears in court this court need not look farther than that to see if he's going to appear he has always appeared he has never not appear the what i find striking is that in this case is that every time the government shifts its theory it does so after we allegedly we the defense provide additional evidence day one we argued mr perrault of was working they did nothing to investigate that despite the fact that the i arrested him in his place of business they argued against the fact that he was the victim from his apartment no he fled and threw everything down they conceded they proved that he was and that he was in