good morning lisa joan the st case this morning is the united states versus sanders and  my name is angela hill and i am representing vickie sanders in this case your honor of the lower court than i did processed in a sanders and violated its own local rules by failing to give the sanders the opportunity to reply to the government's response as permitted by local rule seven ten it also relied on the incorrect legal standard standard as this court later ruled in united states versus gun then it also abus this court reverse and revamp or further proceedings under local rule seven point one g b missing ender's had seven days from the date of the government's response to file a reply the court however in order to order  that you didn't raise in the motion to reconsider if there was how was this to ender's prejudice cmdr reply i believe what misandrist would have raised in her reply is she would have responded to the new evidence and new arguments that were raised by the government so the response to the government included new evidence that were new medical records that included the fact that misandrist had contract and coded since she filed her motion for compassionate release it also included  information suggesting that she was asymptomatic whenever she got the government's response also made the suggestion that miss sanders would be immune so and the court did latch on to that and to those records in denying her motion for compassionate release so in reply misandrist would have addressed that evidence in that the  government had attached to its response it was also have elaborated on the suggestion that she would have been immune and of course cited to the evidence out there surrounding immunity to and it also would have you know attack the idea that she was asymptomatic which the court did rely on in its order naing her most so those are some of the some of asymptomatic and maybe other evidence that she could have it she could have included any other evidence that would have shown that she was not a symptomatic so that would have been evidence that she would have included so this court has held in robert l minders versus the united health care that local rules must give way whenever they infringe upon due process and fundamental fairness and here the denial of her ability to respond to this new evidence and new arguments by the government was in denial of due process of fundamental fairness and whenever the district of her rights to due process and as i did indicate the court didn't simply rely on this new evidence and this new argument on page seven of the court's order be the court indicates that motion put down his standards were the danger and in his part of that it said mr sanders medical conditions did not inhibit her criminal activity or drug abuse and of course the new medical records and her reaction or her or her symptoms from kobe it would have been relevant to her medical condition and whether she would have been a danger under the court's reasoning what w that sometimes from my discussions from a standard is of course those are allowed to be on the record of course but mrs sanders did indeed have symptoms she had problems breathing of course and save sinners has serious medical conditions including c o p t v and asthma and one can imagine that it is a serious for her but she did in my conversations for her had difficulty breathing it was very scary for her six and at the time she is in florida where the where cold it is very overwhelming at the time and at the time it was the understanding of many inmates at the institution that there may not be hospital bed were they to become seriously ill so it was a very big concern for her at the time fortunately she did make it through but for time she had problems breathing it was evident and phone calls that she was having difficulties this is all based on a phone call these are the phone calls that i had from her which is the only ability that we really have interact with missing unders she is incarcerated in florida and the only we would get letters from missing ender's talking about her symptoms those would be the only the only way we have to interact with her  reply but there is no such requirement in the local rules that misandry notify the court of any intent to file a reply the look rules just give misandrist the opportunity to file a reply within seven days and also the supreme court has held in hollingsworth versus perry that courts are bound by their local world's local rules have the force of law clearly hear of the local ru permitted miss anders to file a reply within seven days and the court denied her that right to file her reply within seven days when it denied her motion for compassionate relief before those seven days had  think the only practical impact on this case is that the court felt that it was bound by the directive that it had to deny miss sanders motion if it found that she was a danger to the community so the court specifically says this in its order that it was bound by the policy or statement that it had to deny her motion if she was a danger to the community dangerousness was relevant to the court also abused its discretion whenever it considered misandry medical conditions it relied on and accurate information it's clear here that the court did not consider the up to  s r and it cites to the new evidence the twenty one pages that was included by the government and its response it does not include the evidence that misandry was included that included outbreaks that the facility she was detained at that she would suffer serious illness including death and these were relevant to the court's analysis in several respects and it's clear that this was absent from what it took into account of her consent medical conditions and the sports pacifically concluded that standard medical conditions did not inhibit her criminal activity or her drug abuse but of course it's not clear that it ever consider a full picture of what her medical conditions consisted of  finally it's clear here that if the court failed to consider misandry mitigation arguments including her medical precisely what medical conditions were  asthma and obesity those were the ones that were relevant to her arguments now it is important to note the judge does cite to what her arguments are in the beginning of its border but it makes citation it doesn't but it doesn't include that in it summary of what it says in her medical history is it simply cites her argument and then whenever the court goes into her medical history has a specific section entitled medical history and it sets out what the court  medical history is all it does there is cite to what the p s r says her medical history is then it goes on to cite to what the government says or what the government records say about the new information that she can track t included extensive evidence that she had a perfect disciplinary record while she was in the bureau of prisons she had extensive program participation she had participated in substance abuse and mental health treatment she had a good work record in the prisons she had actually participated in a distance learning program one of her goals and actually she had told this to the judge at sentencing and she cited to this in her briefing that in the transcript it's that instance she told the judge that what she wanted to do with become a substance abuse counselor and help people that had the same substance abuse problems that she did and she made good on that promise she took distance learning classes and got a certificate to become a substance abuse counselor while she was in the bureau of prisons she rather it focused on the athens conduct and there's also indication in the order denying the motion that it's not clear that the court really truly recognized that it could consider that in the apple united states in this matter i want to st start by addressing judge rovers question to the helen about any new information that she could have alleged but didn't in her motion to reconsider  concerning her due process argument in unlike the appellant the government does believe that the posture in which you framed her motion is important it was characterized as an emergency motion she did  decided now but judge gilbert did in his order indicate that he felt that he was bound by one b one point one three but i think what's important to note is it was a specific part of one b one point any other reliance on the one thirteen i think is is is harmless in the sense that it didn't affect the district court's decision in this case which which essentially brings to what the government believes is the overriding  conditions with her decades long history of crime so the district court on the number of asians recognize the fact that misener is medical conditions were serious in amounted to extraordinary compelling reasons but in continuing on the district several drug related convictions in california in the eighty's and ninety's as well as a ninety seven conviction for forgery on that same page the district court recognize offense in a place the welfare of the community at risk the disher court's orders are littered with examples of its exercise of its discretion in why it was exercising its discretion in the manner in which home confinement in the district court analyze that as it should under three thousand five hundred and fifty three a appropriateness of other sentences in the district court found that that was a political standard and said that that was unworkable essentially senator's criminal conduct occurred in her home in the district court also in analyzing that pointed out to the recency of this criminal conduct in found that that plan was unworkable which which is a further illustration of the extraordinary circumstances whether compassion or at least was appropriate in the district court found that it wasn't in the government believes that that was appropriate was an appropriate exercise of the significant discretion