those anyone in our nation's capital today the other two have goods i was thinking that was possible but that has somebody somewhat closer to our new orleans location and we have magistrate directed the u s marshal to release the defendant and her criminal case the judge was not in the united states her from all other enforcement measures the district court committed reversible error by expanding the scope not release order to page order that the government then moved to reconsider and then the judge issued does the summer and horsemen order that's right that's exactly that's exactly right so touched on interests that were outside the scope of the criminal case and so the u s attorney's office didn't need to appeal the magistrate's repeats order addressing the conditions of release and not limited context of her criminal case u some procedure by which ice could have in effect enter behind in this case no your honor i don't know i can't even imagine how that would work i mean technically it and you that interesting even though this is a i'll say loosely stated there grow no matter because it's an order of the district court at the time you filed your brief you were at the office of immigration live edition so you're with you with that side of the st expansion about word or to prohibit civil immigration detention so i can't i said not to court this defendant and the issue is not whether the government may prosecute someone who has removed from that country so even if her move all itself were a issue you know i guess i sort of want to head off a possible concerns this court may have i feel comfortable conceding that absent the narrow circumstances identified and federal rule of criminal indicating that that happened and district court made no factual finding that that happened and in going back to the transcripts from the november november hearing on the government's motion to evidence showed that the defendant had access free access and no charge to i pads where she could video conference with her counsel she had twenty four hour twenty four hour access to the phone where she could speak with her defendant was held and state other than where the defendant was being criminally prosecuted and in fact and the d c circuit case which which i think i'm very familiar with  two but i think it's important to to address least hypothetically not to say the evidence is there but it is interfering with the preparation what would judge reviews or any other decision judges authority be in your require is that a constitutional violation cannot be found in a vacuum and so again you have to have specific facts to constrain not i think it under your hypothetical and it's a hypothetical because i proceedings if if you know out there there was a recent gesture court decision where the defendant was actually removed from the country and the district court permitted her criminal prosecution to continue because the court found that modern technology allows for councils alleged access issues to being for me through face time and phone calls and so i think understanding based on the transcript is that defense counsel noted that when i still read took custody of her that she was not initially aware of where her client was and  you know she also conceded that they say at that point and mediately informed her how she could locate her client and there were no other allegations much less  see to the criminal process when they defend it is released under the format and i see that my time is about to a lot so unless your orders have any further questions i'm happy to you to and we were at this minute agreeing with the government's characterization and this council developed the jurisdictional argument independently and we agreed with ammon further on for their review we think the government did have an opportunity to speak reviewing the release order should her in detention well what if any effect do you give to the fact that ice was st in line iced attainder then indicted then granted bail by the master judge in a very in a form order there's no findings of fact conclusions of law and i'm just a form you fill out and she signed and so then they have a detainer when they bring her up here under that testified so there's no sense in which i says interest where you are absent from the tension or hadn't you know had ice wanted her to remain in custody you know that could have been raised at the time i started the government certainly could have requested want the record clear for the purposes of this recorded on them all right go ahead yes and i represent if i might also testified at the the motion of reconsideration hearing and i actually think that testimony is incredibly important  confirmed that calls with counsel were confidential i believe he said all bone calls were reported and he was not able to say whether or not phone calls and video calls were made so clearly the district court had plenty of evidence before him to operate together and decision has come from a lot of other some other courts is that they do act independently and they just have to be some appreciation by all involved of the others row but but it makes a finding that the defendant is not a flight risk and not a danger to the community the congress has directed that that person be uber be and there's no possible understanding of the work release that encompasses you know simply transferring her to another who are subject to remove other removal proceedings and for those individuals a release order would never actually mean belief it would mean that i had to simply pick them up instead and that can't be the case  to imagine the judicial officer after considering all the evidence ordered here released on very specific conditions like posting tens a mass far tens of thousands of dollars bond or entering a treatment regardless of whether that procedures been followed so in our view that can't be the best reading of the bill reform reaches issues and that those thorny issues must await another day d as the proper disposition of this appeal would be to dismiss for lack of stiction now the government concedes that he did not challenge the matter judges practicalities of this we have this form signed by the magistrate judge then when defendants problem back up here to jackson for a pretrial hearing then she moves to have her bail held ballot as opposed to her detention on ice and the judge issues a less than a page order saying he'll ro so in effect judge graves certainly felt like this was an ongoing proceeding he considered the motion for reconsideration which stayed that october ruling he issued an opinion and not that is controlling even stated the government had the right to take an appeal and he hoped it would so that there is some order can be created here so there's a there's a lot of merit to the contention that the december enforcement order is the a political order from which the government could and should have appealed on a motion for reconsideration so address the procedure that was followed tell you have more to say but your time is up and and we do have a very thorough and excellent brief on this well despite all the arguments i believe we have a little bit more time from  defense counsel and the district court proceedings not counsel today had immigration counsel testify at her september magistrate bail hearing and in an effort to try to support the conclusion that into more inversnaid car in supreme courts case you have to have a clear and manifest congressional intent that one statute supersedes the other and so in pursuance of that it congress would have had to have said in the bill reform act which again it covers only criminal bail that a that a release order under the b r a prescribed isis detention or binds the entire executive branch nowhere does it even come close to sayin important case for our circuit addressed maybe indistinguishable ways by other circuits already we will have to deal with that but actually advocacy th