and afternoon judge please the court my name is brian can i ask am the defense attorney i represent the appellant in this matter mr darrin miller at this point in time mr miller is currently incarcerated pending resolution of his criminal case whether that's resolved by either plea or a trial is yet to be seen at this point but previously there was a bail hearing that was held by the district court the district court found that mr miller was to be detained pending trial in this matter or or resolution there were two main issues one issue was whether or not mr miller posed a danger to the community the second issue whether he was a substantial risk of flight the court appeared to find that mr miller was not a danger to the community but still found that he was posed a risk of flight the court did provide some reasons for that decision but your honour's it including that he was facing a ten year mandatory minimum prison sentence based on the charges that he was facing at that time that he had multiple prior serious convictions that resulted in lengthy jail terms prior to his arrest in this case that based on his age he's currently fifty years old that a lengthy sentence for him would be very significant and would create tremendous incentives for him to flee that in the past he had used aliases and that he had traveled to the dominican republic a few years ago and that he had also extensive ties out of state in the state of north carolina and the court found that his criminal history was also particularly troubling so those were the reasons that i was able to  would be my position that north carolina really isn't something that the court should have considered too much since it's really close by if he takes a leave to north carolina if that were the case one would think that he could be retrieved rather easily from north carolina i can certainly understand the court being more concerned about potential ties to the dominican republic but i think it was also found that he hadn't traveled to the dominican republic for a number of years and as part of the proposed bail package one of the conditions aside from home incarceration which was proposed with electronic monitoring so law enforcement could easily be notified if you tried to leave anywhere very quickly and  federal litigation sometimes oftentimes cases are strong but yet defendants are still released with bail package and it was my position that regardless of whether the government claims that the evidence in this case is strong and whether or not there or wiretap recordings of my client making certain incriminating statements nonetheless the government still hadn't met its burden shown that my client is a substantial risk of flight and getting back to the issue of whether or not contacts a dominican republic or are substantial i would argue that they're not mr miller had not been the dominican republic for a number of years and one of the conditions that i had proposed was surrendering mr miller's passport and that he not reapply for a new one so that would eliminate that risk he made the american you know i don't believe so so i think the totality of the circumstances what is  what is if we know from the record that took him to the dominican republic i think i'd be i believe it was vacation but i'd be somewhat speculating and you know it's right  so in this particular case mr miller actually had a lot of family support when we showed up for district court arguments there were a lot of family members here who proposed a bond of one hundred thousand dollars and we proposed other conditions such as  like i had made went mention a few moments ago home incarceration with electronic monitoring surrendering passport let me see what else i had the decision to deny  bail argument at first so we reserve the right for a future bail argument i think the first bail argument was heard by judge sullivan before judge sullivan judge sullivan denied it and then i appealed or filed a motion for emergency relief here we also proposed travel restrictions to eastern and southern district of new york and pretty much inform the court that we would be open to pretty much any other condition of the court was set i mean we at at the arguments we very much explain to the court any restrictions at all that the court was open to right i think the question is whether or not if there's any travel at all that's necessary that would be with the approval of pretrial services that generally speaking it would be limited to the eastern southern district of new york so that you know that if he's not if he's going outside those areas that he's in violation i think of the purpose and the point of everything was to make sure pretrial services know where he is that he has electronic monitoring that he doesn't go outside these jurisdictions no matter what and to really ensure that he's not a risk of flight and i think that with the one hundred thousand dollar bond with the proposed cosigners with the family members that were supporting him i think that we demonstrated that he was not a substantial risk of flight in this case our review or use of discretion yes i see that my time is up if anybody has any additional questions i'd be my name is karen portlock i am an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represented the government below and i represent the government in connection with this appeal first i'll just i'll just  state that the review of this court is for clear error and the district court ruling should be affirmed the district court did not commit clear error in finding that the defendant should be detained that he's a risk of flight among the reasons cited by the district court includes the significant sentence the defendant faces multiple prior serious convictions his use of aliases and multiple dates of birth prior travel to the dominican republic and his ties to north carolina where he has two prior convictions for narcotics trafficking what exactly is the significance of the dominican republic in all of this i can clarify your honor the defendant in an interview with pretrial services on the date of his arrest told the officer he traveled to the dominican republic in two thousand and twelve for a wedding so that's the information that we have on that that's not particularly relevan well it was something that judge sullivan mentioned the defendant does have prior international travel but that was noted with multiple other reasons so as i said the defendant has used multiple aliases dates of birth and has a serious criminal record responding to the court's questioning regarding his connections to north carolina the government submit those that are relevant to the court's consideration  yes your honor furthermore it's also stated in the record the defendant has prior convictions in north carolina not just for narcotics offenses but also for fraud offenses there were several frau offenses he was convicted of there in two thousand and four including identity theft in addition the court noted the defendant's prior noncompliance with supervision his parole was revoked twice the the first robbery conviction was in march of one nine hundred ninety he was convicted of attempted robbery in the second degree following his release in one thousand nine hundred one to parole parole was revoked in but if not from me it's fine judge i just for clarification i think that counsel is correct the standard is clear error not abuse of discretion and i would also make note that i think that the court reliance in any way on the travel to the dominican republic also made this erroneous since it was clearly for tourism travel or travel for a wedding which was the last travel we had but that's it thank you very much