well here the final case to be argued this morning united states versus confinement given the allegations of opponents past pattern of violent acts and disregard of his obligations under united states laws there is no such allegation here also two of them they asked for a nine continuances then york your the fact your client changed cancel three times right actually your honor that is not correct because if you were to say between the two of them my client's codefendant rick required quite a few continuances because he changed counsel i believe five times my client did not my client your client change counsel three times kopp cagny could not represent both parts so and the brief that i submitted the reply refers to the other day walks through each one of the continuance of the government attempts to attribute to us i will submit the only request for continuance that my a real case points out that in that case there were many many many pretrial demands of the defendants the only pretrial demand one could try to attribute my client was a switch and lawyers he hasn't anyway wanted to mention was the bridge case in two thousand and twelve where in that case there was a twenty six month delay of but the judge calibers he said he was deeply troubled by the length of the tension and not was getting a credible source th please the court my name is brian leming i'm assisting united states attorney here in the district of connecticut i'll start where counsel left off as to the due process argument there's no dispute that thirty three months is a long time but there's also no dispute that the government did not contribute at all to that delay the delay is attributable to either one or both of the defendants for the multiple motions for extensions of time pretrial motions that refiled for supplemental briefing that was also requested and submitted as a relates to the motion to suppress and the requests for additional time for to prepare for trial all of which was complicated just over fourteen months ago when the pandemic shut down the courts in most court activity and initially for a couple months but continuously since then there'd been no jury trials in the district of connecticut that was scheduled to resume and reported to the court this case scheduled for trial at some early point but then delayed because of the pandemic it was delayed periodically it was given different sort of placeholder dates to see how the  pandemic was going to play out it was an attempt in the fall by the district court here at start trials but they were unable to impanel a jury so they suspended again the jury trials that order was scheduled to  be lifted early may we did have a conference because judge house did prioritize this case and did report that he would be there to try the case in june of this year the government reported that it would prepare to go but both counsel asked for additional time and based upon other scheduling issues with witnesses and counsel the september date was agreed upon by all lawyers and the judge well what is the indication that he's a danger to the public if he were to be out on bail the danger as all three of the judges have talked about is the very seriousness of the conduct the amount of drugs involved the particular dangerousness of the dangerous but there's no flat rule and anybody who's going to trial on a drug cases is is a threat to the public i mean if you really look at this it looks as though he was  know and the larry you know maybe a danger to the public i don't know but if you look at this he basically seems to be sort of a gopher for for and he was working for the area in what could appear to any employee to be a legitimate business so what he said he did in all of this well that makes him a danger to the i analogue are found where the drug proceeds and a drug paraphernalia were found he had the key to that apartment he was identified by the landlord as living in that apartment and the evidence as outlined in the previous submissions  barry on the rd man both of them or all three of them were carrying nine thousand five hundred dollars in cash they were again heading to the dominican republican republic and it was significant because they gave conflicting answers as to to your honor based upon other evidence that we've had including information from confidential sources that mr us of a does have relationships with people who are he could obtain drugs but i would also focus the court as to the significant flight risk that both the magistrate judges found that he was that strong ties to the dominican republic that he had essentially really no ties to the district of connecticut and facing  almost a certainty of his removal from the country and a mandatory prison term magistrate judges found that he had a very strong incentive to flee and obviously that was a part of the analysis and that's the lower threshold that the court must find only by preponderance that he presents a flight risk and that the conditions proposed you know recently assure his appearance in court so i think it was really a combination of the flight risk and the dangerousness obviously the court found all three different occasions that the nature and circumstances of the case was that it was extremely dangerous conduct and that they multics sagarin amount of drugs certainly for our district and i see gone over my time i'm happy to answer any further questions by the panel in july and they were fixed to take place in july the judge concluded the conversation by saying now everybody get off the phone and if anybody has any problems with that don't get back to me attorney leaving my friends from connecticut here several days later contacted the court  r we cannot accommodate that date our investigator is not available so he proposed backing up to june when not only was i not available more fundamentally my co defendants knew counsel said i'm just not ready so we were all set to go and so i until the government said they couldn't make it and they said well do it in our convenience and you don't neither one of us could do it and even if i were prepared to do it my co defendants counsel said he couldn't so that's not completely correct so we took the next day the court had available which was so your your adversary are used that there's really nothing to keep your client in the district of connecticut he has however he has where is his family look at he has a wife and kids he has a wife and kids there are and they are located in new jersey they are also from the dominican republic his wife they have originally got divorced but they got back together before this trial before he got arrested and his her her father came from the dominican republic and then you're say that they they got together you mean they remarried they have not yet remarried they were arrested he was arrested before they were able to come who got their raising a six year old child together her mother as her mother's her father came from the d r served in world war two he's a physician end to jersey  mother is a is a very very well respected person who does all sorts of charitable work long time relations and they came from the d r now that that's a that's maybe the question is what what's the prospect that he might actually what respect i think this court in his cloudy adjoins newman specifically said what i just read which is the mere fact that he has a connection with another country is not enough and he's willing to be on a