arsons if you can hear me you might want to connect and reconnect to the meeting you may not have anticipated are getting an early start group if you have a separate telephone number you might be able to reach out to them and yes i do your honor one moment thank you yes thank you may it please the court my good friend mr bell can dain eagle chasing was actually a track star in high school and college athletic scholarship offers but his life since that time has been one of violence and drinking and crime of many varieties he's been arrested more than ninety times by the shy and reverse of tribal police even though he spent much of his adult life in prison  his st federal conviction was for beating someone over the head with an iron skillet and when the animal judge john jones sentenced him in that case to forty one months in federal prison he said you have the potential to kill people when you're drinking and of course that's what happened when he was released from prison for the term use playing dominoes of this pozen and his girlfriend she woke up and knocked over the dominoes he grabbed a kitchen knife grabbed her throat had his cousin put down a blanket on the floor and then stabbed her in the heart after saying this is what i'm going to do to you so he was sentenced to one hundred and sixty eight months of prison five years of supervised release and this is the rd revocation for that  haman does not apply the president does not apply elaine does not apply to generally to revocation proceedings but even if they did this would not be a case for that rationale can be applied because nothing in judge harmon's actions increased or nothing in the statute that spin was applied by judge korman required the mandatory minimum to be increased based on judicial fact finding alone or required the maximum sentence to be increased based on to this will fact finding alone in fact the maximum authorize sense in this case was life in prison and so payment simply does not apply to revocation proceedings  a judge's expressions of familiar with the reprehensible of the of the convicted conduct of the defendant who keeps appearing before him on successive charges is not an objective demonstration of bias and i think the same goes for the general observation that defendants who keep violating the conditions of supervised release might expect harsher penalties a funny successive violation i'd the idea that this statement about well there may be some valid concerns about the judicial system as a whole that a native american may have i think that's the reading of the most obvious reading judge harmon's comment whether that's true or not he said that may be true maybe not but that's nothing that affected this case they tried carter was just recognizing that some people do have concerns about whether or not the judicial was exceedingly familiar with this fact with the facts of the case that's it's been going on for for decades an hour or more than a decade and that's all his comments reflect it so i turned to the suffici just because you might later call your probation officer and let him know you fled that doesn't excuse the violation in the st place and so whether or not he got into a scuffle or a fight at the glory house he was required to be there and fled and no one heard from him for three days he fled many many miles away back to eagle butte from sioux falls so that in and of itself enough to affirm the revocation of his supervised release suspended at one point by the chief judge but that the testimony was it was reinstated by the chief judge and a lot of the documents of the record are resolutions as the testimony explains resolutions that weren't necessarily and acted by the council and so everyone on the side members who try believes they have a valid traffic code and that the judge marino is the magistrate judge found that they record the body camera of the tribal police officer that's exhibit here exhibit c and so that'll take you through the chase you can see your fear the the sirens the red and blue lights flashing in the sirens a the defendant is is leading the officer on a chase he pulls over you can see the car you can see that there's not police marking on the car but you can see the front of the car in the video and see that the lights are there and you can see the siren hooked up to it so it's there's no doubt in the defendant even admitted he knew the police were trying to get him to stop he just decided not to stop because he wanted to get back to his his mother's house and as you know sort of the technical reading of the statute requires that the car be marked and there's a separate provision for a signal including sirens and lines and to say that sirens and lights also meets the marking is to create surplusage and in the statute what about there's a sort of a statutory arguing that what your response to that well you know can't change the fact that's true there was not a police marking on on the car i don't think it's necessarily surplusage if the point of the of the statute is is that you have to know it's a police officer there's no doubt that he did it is marked with  of discretion or clearly erroneous to find that this was identified marked as a police officer in his mind certainly the defendant there was also a substantive or is also a challenge to the sentence i think the procedural argument is that the defendant did not object or is that the court relied on objected united states versus meant here when he end up jack to any of those findings about the description of the murder of those who are dead it deemed admitted so and this one out a lot of dispute about what happened in the case terms of the murder so i don't see how that could ever be anything other than harmless if there was procedural error and then you have the subset of reasonable in this argument evil chasing was sensed a one hundred and sixty eight months on the original term he got when he st violated they got ten months more when he violated again he got an additional twenty months and this rd supervised release violation he got in the additional thirty months so many total it out of this sentence he will have been sentenced to serve a total of two hundred and twenty eight months which is less than twenty years in prison for having been a multiple fallon who took a knife and stabbed it in the heart of his girlfriend who knocked over dominoes substantively i think are objective lee would say that's not enough time for a murder and i'd certainly wasn't substantively unreasonable under the law and the irony here is that in making a jurisdictional argument that this did not occur in indian country  certainly did occur in indian country and i can go into that if the court would like me to no doubt that it did zero but if it hadn't and the state had jurisdiction in this case eagle chasing would have been subject to a mandatory life sentence under south dakota law for nd degree murder he would have been in prison for life so federal jurisdiction benefited mr eagle chasing in this case i would ask this court firm if it has no other question this was a reasonable return to prison by mr eagle chasing who keeps over and over violating the conditions of a supervised release thank you