matter but i'm going to watch the clock and reserve three minutes for republic of the government did not present sufficient evidence to show that the boys here were in official detention and in deportation because the plain meaning of the statute means that the detention has to be connected to an actual order of removal and there was no testimony well that's the question that's not the end i mean that is the answer you would like but that is the question and the word pending as i understand it is not defined in the statute am i right about that that's correct or he lawyer might say i'm not going to take any new clients pending my senate confirmation and that lawyer would say that even if she never ends up being confirmed in the end because she's been nominated and the process is ongoing with that is the hope for result so why wouldn't that be the same here once the process is set in motion i mean that's sort of the only reason why these young people are detention at all they're not just random kids off the street they're people that the government is department oh well the problem with that or your honor is that wasn't the testimony of the trial ortees at least there wasn't any evidence that the government presented in its but is this is this is a factual question or is it really just a legal question as to what pending deportation means and whether it has to mean follow up on it if i may if pending deportation does not require a final order and remove all that is if we disagree with your specific understanding of the statute what is your best argument factual about why the removal process had not been set in motion sufficiently as factual detention still has to be pending deportation there has to be a causal connection some sort of relationship between detention and as we've read to talk about it the detention and the removal proceed that they were being they were awaiting reunification with a sponsor or a foster family in the united states there could be ongoing even while they're in a foster home or living with a relative in the united states that the tension here arguing that they were detained if they were in fact attained correct they were not free to believe they were  misapprehensions it should give the court strong pause about whether he can be fair that you understand that in our circuit unlike other circuits we almost never reassigned to a different judge extremely unusual about the killings and the thing that i think it's truly unusual here is that the judge in explaining the sentence completely misstated the trial evidence he said did not know that because the judge excluded all evidence of his h r t status from the trial and w and he said that mr protection was reckless without any evidence that mr vick checco was taking provide took measures to prevent the spread of a very or without accounting for the fact that there was no exchange of blood or semen in and in fact they kept saying over and over again that her testimony was more reliable because it was not connected to this case but dahmer the daughter and disability standard plainly requires th erroneous we admitted to testimony having an effect on the jury and we know that it did because the prosecutors presented the testimony in order to show that even victims were brea reserve the balance of my time thank you you may do that we'll hear next from the government know that now we can hear you terrific thank you your honor may it please the court i'm peter cause annette's representing the united states the convictions and the sentence should be affirmed for at least three reasons st the trial evidence contained substantial testimony showing that these victims were in official detention pending deportation nd expert testimony of dr biden was properly invented rd the sentence was procedurally proper and substantively reasonable with respect to the evidence to trial on detention and deportation the government's immigration expert mr albert forty year veteran of the ins and then the citizenship and immigration services testified without objection and without any sort of content without being controverted that he had reviewed the victim's immigration files each of them that they had each been arrested for immigration violations for that they could each also receive notices to appear at their removal proceedings these notices are the official charging documents which set forth there are charges of remove the ability that they were all in these proceedings it had been set new motion and that because of all of that they were pending deportation he also testified that those proceedings would would that be pending deportation to and it's possible your honor that that made me trigger this provided that they were put into detention following vattel rast but even apart from that under the facts of this case the trial evidence in this case it's abundantly is that there is no real expectation that it could fall through so it seems to me there is some ambiguity there  and i went to this legislative history about why our congress was trying to accomplish sure so the legislative history on this particular is relatively scant but if we look to to the structure of the statute and its object and purpose those provide additional mutually reinforcing indications that this term isn't meant to be given t incredibly narrow definition of the defense suggests so that these the statute of conviction is the sexual abuse act of nine hundred and eighty six in a statute applies to very broadly to any place where people are held in to in detention pursuant to a contract with the head of any federal agency or department so it applies broadly to two federal detention facilities were at large and the definition of official custody is similarly tainted with a very broad brush encompassing a large to do it in compassing a very sweeping number of detainees people who've been arrested charged convicted of an office or pending as in this case deportation and when you kind of compare that to the trial evidence you see that the evidence here is the undisputed of it it's that they had been arrested they had been charged they'd been placed in the proceedings that the proceedings wouldn't end until they were actually statute is it was clearly recognized in the move case from the th circuit which is that congress what you know was expressing the strong federal interest in ensuring the safe and fair and responsible administration federal detention facilities including the prevention of sexual abuse in those facilities and clearly applying the statute here furthers that object and purpose my follow up question is what are your responses specifically coun argument that these boys were actually awaiting release to relatives there and they were not headed for deportation shermer so i think th the best way of looking at that ad is is plucked at under what circumstances could they be released from from this detention that they're indisputable and as mr ghonim testified there are proceedings there there remove all proceedings would end in one of two things actual deportation or dismissal of the case obviously if if there are cases progress to actual deportation and while they were still in custody in detention that would be the end of their detention they would be gone if earlier than that the office of refugee resettlement is able to find a safe and suitable sponsor they might be released earlier to that sponsor so really they're in detention pending the earlier  their actual removal from the country for their real relationship to a sponsor and that so that's one way of answering the question another way of answering it is that the statute doesn't require any causal connection between the detention and so whether you require a causal connection or not there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict here particularly when viewed under the very supportive standard of jackson versus novels which requires us to construe any potential conflicts in the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict point really stands out and it's that the thrust of dr dunn's testimony was that children involved in sexual abuse are commonly observed to have certain issues with how they describe the abuse the occur in a piecemeal fashion in a delayed fashion or partial fashion is a bit central that central thrust of of her testimony has been well accepted by court in case law dealing back those three recent cases being unpublished the court has consistently recognized that this kind of testimony is probative and relevant and is not subject to exclusion under rule four  eminently qualified in fact she is arguably the most qualified person to address this subject matter in the state of arizona for nearly thirty years she has served on the state's children's justice task force which is a office run out of the governor's is division of women and children but she travels around the state training child protective service workers and law enforcement officers on how to do this how to interview child witnesses and victims particularly in cases involving child abuse she also on a day to day basis practices in this area and has over the course of her thirty year career conducted more than and she was eminently qualified to deliver the defense talks about harmless error and whether the testimony sufficiently addressed the facts of the case and i would respond your hono by pointing out that her testimony became relevant to the facts of this case once the defense cross examined all of the victims on issues they had with how they disclosed the abuse so with with respect to delays or partial disclosures that were experienced in this case and again that's consistent with the thirty years of case law that i've just referred to in all of those cases this court has recognized that this if you determine that there was any error in any abuse of discretion here the court can find on its own based on the substantial record that this witness was qualified and provided reliable expert testimony in this area and alternatively the court could find harmless in this because this testimony comprised just a very small slice of all of that has many presented a new trial and it more likely than not it did not substantially sway the jury judge made any sort of clear air of fact in whether the sentence was substantively reasonable there was no clear error of fact because there was evidence in the record to support the conclusion that mr pitch a co had exposed one or more victims to potentially contract a major i v and where does this come from it comes from the admission of the defendant that he had the virus and the officers mention that to him and he said i have high blood pressure and i mean hiv positive the next thing that happened is that the residents of casa kokopelli or informed that the defendant was a child to be positive and they were educated about how h transmitted they received a presentation from a center that specializes on these issues after that happened to children came forward to victims who hadn't previously disclosed abuse and they said we would like to be tested and we have we would like to disclose that we have been sexually abused by this individual in his objections to the p s r the defendant wrote that the victim  case and that it's a potentially deadly disease for which there can be seen mandatory reporting in certain circumstances the hedge so all these facts taken together we submit burn up to show that the district court didn't this defendant visited upon these children who were being detained at the facility and i'll tell you the value here you're out of time and i think we thank you with that we respectfully request that your farm thank you and i believe you have just shy of three minutes for about all remaining f thank you your honor i want  have a clue next in between the answer and the deportation or here are the deportation proceedings and that it's just wrong the pending means of waiting there has to be you're going to wait and citizen in their removal proceed attention or poor immigration related or federal criminal law enforcement related and prosecuted the foster home and it's regulated by the state of arizona in fact a couple of weeks after the trial ended the state of arizona tried to revoke stuff with kids licenses because they weren't doing proper background checks that's not the sort of thing that congress is so uniquely focused on that it it should