your attention perhaps you saw yesterday on the front page of the new york times there was an investigative report about me and dan barry connecticut and other federal facility reinforcing what dr that matters that in my mission attending that they feel for me is not testing than not providing safety they are not providing the kind of medical quick medical support that they need they don't have the ability to quarantine high risk individuals like my client i'm not clear i don't think anyone on this panel could argue that mr rivers is not a high risk he is sixty one years really because it is high risk but he would also being returned to the n d p something that would not be clearly in his best interest to be drug free and i do believe there are that there have been prisoners indeed may be well along on that process in the new york federal facility selection status with respect to your client's sex nation i don't know the answer to that your honor i don't know you haven't discussed that with  he would be residing with his daughter i believe it's in the bronx well it's that some soaks of who have sought compassionate release would actually be going into communities and neighborhoods that have a higher exemption rate than the federal facility and so i was wondering how the area where your client proposed to go back would be the bronx has been the area of the city that has had the is reminiscent of many people i represented years ago in state court who were addicted to heroin and other narcotics and he doesn't have a thing so i want to issue while he's been incarcerated the concerns of risk of flight as well as dangerous because people can't leave and we all know what he and he will go right back to prison so we can't allow i think your hon and i think she did not consider even though he said he considered that his medical conditions were compelling i don't think he did consider them as compelling i don't think he gazed up proper w i just don't think we can risk that happening triggered gentleman under the circumstances that i that's what i think judge couldn't really know how compelling it truly is thank you very your research one minute and then the government good afternoon your honor is in may please the court my name is jonathan our and i'm assisting united states attorney in the eastern district new york represent the united states here in this appeal and there's clearly not clear eric year this court would have to be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed and the record farls far short of meeting that high hurdle here and just briefly going through and  outlined this more in our in our brief but the gist of court never committed any error of never less clear air when considering all the four factors in the bail reform act when looking at the nature and circumstances of this offense and armed bank armed bank robbery and it doesn't necessarily require a real gun to do so and the government can't say whether or not that gun is really sure looks like it's real on the surveillance video and when the victim and the teller standing there as mr rivers of the defendants co defendants the three of the defendants in a three way call and as well the defendant and meeting post miranda of his participation in this armed bank robbery you also and i and judge sullivan reference this when you look at the appear and defense counsel says that the most recent arrest was in two thousand and thirteen but that's only four years prior to the defendant's arrest for an armed bank robbery here it is a pattern and history of failure to complying with law and court and court orders and requirements that showed the defendants risk of flight and so when judge coats look at all of these factors judge the judge made a determination that in the balance  h the defendant was a danger to community based on based on the the offense here as well as a risk of flight based on defense history and that the taliban the defendant's actions and so there again your honor i want your honors i don't believe that the district court's detention order should be disturbed briefly i know judge rad you raise the question about vaccination i received an email this morning from n b c legal on the defendant has not been it was offered and accepted and is on the list but has not been provided vaccine yet and is when there is no estimated date yet but the vaccines have started for  appointed new counsel and then we've had extensions of trial date based on both defendants with new counsel and then the one of the co defendants james mcleod asking for extensions as well currently the trial date is scheduled for be helpful in these circumstances to avoid any suggestion of a difference to his medical needs yes your honor so our office along with the federal defenders and the a panel has highlighted cases for and there's a new digital panel right now in the e d n y that is collecting all the in custody defendants and has a collecting the list from all the parties regarding who has been in custody the longest so that they will get priority as they roll out trials here in edi and why that that is being evaluated by  i don't want to go into any details about possible plea discussions but as you at least exhausted those possibilities no your honor you have not exhausted the possibilities can you can you perhaps bring the point is he needs to be out of prison and say that even when he goes to trial i will have had ample opportunity to talk with him because by the way we are impossible to prepare our client for any kind of trial or hearing when you get if you're lucky thirty minutes at a time and if you get if you're lucky at times that both of you are free so it is it's a complicated situation but i think  different response and to say why is that important that we will take that risk we will put him in a g p s we will put him in a sort of apartment we will take that risk because that is what