and we've been informed that all council have signed then so we will will dispense with the reading of the of the calendar but we do have first a motion in united states for anthony li supervised release also faithfully hearing to those conditions he was charged again in two thousand and eleven on that same pre two thousand and eight conduct he was granted bail in that case also facing a rico charges and other charges and he continued to faithfully here to those conditions and he was even in fact he was those conditions were lifted after five months and he was and they lifted the conditions of home goes the credibility of john doe one who was was the target i think of the threats posed at least what is the nature of that credibility materially well we were able to identify the individual and conducted our own investigation we learned that that individual first of all he had been arrested for impersonating a new york city police officer secondly he was indeed a vigil who was stealing from his recently deceased employer's widow and her son and he was stealing various items from them we've learned other incidents that show that he has a pattern of criminal behavior and pretty criminal activity and that this allegations that he was making was consistent with the idea of him trying to not get caught in in his own criminal conduct those are all issues that we submitted on reconsideration we prepared to have individuals come in and testify to that effect but we were summarily denied in that case mr lakota in this prior cases there's never been any can any incident of physical injury in his cases there's not nothing in this case that alleges physical injury is prior cases as well he he had there was no completion of the of the store since that he was  he pled to in this case there's one incident alleged by the proffers principly this witness's testimony and principly the other evidence of the government cited supports the fact that the two of these individuals met and we don't have any dispute about whether or not they met this cute is what was said in this meeting and what happened in this meeting and that goes to the essence of attacking the credibility of this witness and the district court made absolutely no investigation didn't do anything to ensure the reliability of the government's proffer and you know to that end the district court came into the hearing having already tonight already granting permanent detention based on the detention isn't that you know that your complaint before well your honor the district court did not find any that there were no conditions that can reasonably assure the safety of the community which is what the basis of the detention hearing is about the government agrees that he didn't they they can see if they believe that they should be remanded for clarification of that we don't believe that that's what should happen in this case because we think it's clear error what what the judge what the district court did do in terms of in terms of you know if the the courts previously said that a finding of dangerousness does not take away the presumption of bail an individual who is found to be dangerous still enjoys a presumption of bell and it's only in rare in extreme cases that bell should be denied and that thought present in this case we were able to present the credibility of from ation to the district court during the reconsideration process no your honor as as i mentioned we submitted the application and then the court some merrily denied that application but the application have the issue for for our current purposes it is in this matter more moot in light of the government's readiness to have this matter returned to the district court for further proceedings why why should we do that and then and then if if the result of that hearing is on satisfactory to you as far as you're concerned it's not too much to come back here well this court it is there clear of law this court has plenary review of of a bit of an issue where there's been a clear law and the issue in that case was whether there were conditions that could reasonably assure the safety of the community and the judge didn't consider the judge didn't even mention the saw we understand i understand that but i think what is proper and i were reaming at it is that if that's the case why don't we give them an opportunity or why don't we direct the district judge to do what he failed to do the first time you're on mclean has been sitting in jail for five months and he's been detained and he's been denied his due process he's  rights zooming assuming all of this to be true we're not really in the position ordinarily to to make decisions on bail which take account the wall of the emmett entry facts that you're putting before  that you say may be entirely right but we need to have a record and we were not in the position that make that record well your honor i understand that it's very troublesome when the court initially signs  order permanent attention without giving any up to be heard and then went to the matter comes to the court on appeal because the magistrate court has found that there were reasonable conditions the court only considers that there's an issue of dangerous and doesn't consider whether there are conditions that can reasonably assure the safety of community almost a friend going back to the record as we have it judge contacted presuming on the would it have made the government's case a little stronger i don't i don't see how it went to the magistrate do the magistrate granted release the magistrate said that there were conditions of release the magistrate looked at the  prior it here it's in the findings of the of the previous court which i discussed and said that there are conditions of release that could reasonably assure the safety of the community was that decision made th to us ok why is it five months while mr lookout i was arrested on july eleventh at that time the district court entered a permanent order of detention without seeing mr le cot and anyway  government immediately appealed and went to our in late late july july seventeenth and registry court i mean the district court made its finding that he was a danger in order permanent extension we filed the appeal and why is it taking so long to get here well as we after we filed the appeal we were headed up to conduct our investigation and we found all this evidence to show that just that this witness was not  legitimate businessman the reason he's been in jail this time may be entirely justified is that your your on that you undertook research in his behalf it's not because of any the law or any of the inappropriate action by anyone right well we submitted we submitted the application to reconsider based on our good faith belief that that this information was there in the district court denied it without comm give me the timeline again where in july seventeen eighteen or nineteen and you are you that you then or that are undergoing investigations right that's correct when do you go before any of these judicial officers again well we conducted our investigation in august in the beginning of september i was i had traveled and then i got pneumonia so i ended up getting sick for a couple of weeks which prevented my submission i then submitted i believe it was in the end of september and that's i don't have the data front of me and we waited for the decision on that matter because obviously if the court granted our application there would be no need to proceed may please the court my name is matthew miller and i'm an assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of new york the district court did not clearly err in ordering anthony latasha detained pending trial you admit that it didn't sta reasons which he is required to do by statute that's right your honor and for those reasons we have we agreed that the appropriate action here is a rematch and to the district court to allow the district court to more completely explain the reasons for its decision based on the record that was in front of it and also to be able to consider the new arguments that the examination of the record i don't think so your honor the there was a hearing before the district court and the counsel requested a hearing before the  magistrate on the first opportunity that he requested one he was granted one that afternoon we appeared after the magistrate ordered can release on conditions all of the parties appeared before the district court  district court had before him the government's pretrial memorandum and for detention for the magistrate he did not have that transcript because we were working to ensure that he could be have the hearing quickly  of this case which involved mr lookout to go into a person's business with an associate taking him out of demanding that he leave a meeting that was going on then taking him to an isolated area of the business and demanding on threat of bodily injury that he paid thousands of dollars with a gun or with what the victim perceived to be a gun in his tracksuit were a reason to depart from what had occurred in the previous did today as he's allowed to do and came to a different conclusion and we think that the conclusion is not clearly erroneous it would have been helpful if he laid out his reasons so that we could compare them can you tell me what the evidence is provided and the reason for providing it short so i just to clarify your honor i think what counsel has said is we provided discovery and from that discovery counsel has determined things about the victim witness in this case and he has set them forth in general in extreme generality in his papers i'll just note for one of the things this impersonating a police officer if what i understand is correct this is not in the record but it is the defendant and two of his friends going one of whom was an auxiliary police officer going to a video game store the night that  popular video game was being released and cutting to the front of the line so it's not the sort of thing that maybe it is something that goes to credibility but is not a great hit on on the victim's credibility that at a not saying it was a big deal i mean that's the answer that's the incident and that was not before i'm sorry what was the other information that you reveal that all of a sudden shows that the victim here is not believable we didn't reveal any additional information we had provided general discovery they have identified information and all that i know about that information is what is in the appellants papers but not of mr franco indicated i think that it would be impossible or inappropriate to think that the district judge had the full record before him that had been before the magistrate judge that there wasn't enough time from to have to have reviewed any such record is that fair i don't think so he certainly didn't review the transcript of what was before the magistrate but all of the arguments and all of the things that were before the record that was before the magistrate judge there must have been some papers so pit the record that was before the magistrate judge consisted of the government's detention memorandum and proffers by both part by both counsel about the evidence and that was before the district and the same thing was before the  and so he had the same record on which to make a ruling that the magistrate judge did and he had a copy of the magistrate's ruling today he had a copy of the form detention order with that but for the form release order with the ballot in the conditions and that was summarized by both counsel in front of him as well was very testimony before the mistress there was not a proper yes and so if we take your advice and or i hearing which could involve whatever evidence mr frankel might want to do so then right that's right your honor that's what we think is the appropriate outcome here i mean it's not just a matter of doing written findings on the basis of what already happened but he would have looks to me that you've gotten what you wanted or where you should want not your honor there's no question in my mind that when mr le cut as faithfully as here from his prior bell conditions it's inconceivable that a court could say there are no conditions that that we could reasonably assure the safety of the community you might have a chance now to do all of that to put that case before him i understand i know that my client's not charged with any gun there was a perception by this one witness that there's a perception by this one witness that he was had it bulges tracksuit that was the basis for this you know clear and convincing evidence that he was carrying a gun we asked the district c to review the statements of the witness because the government's proffer basically essentially just what this witness would say and they've avoided the they've skirted around the federal rules of civil criminal procedure to provided he sort of statement by just making by just by just making this proffer and the court could have made an income review it strikes me i mean you this is your big chance i mean now you go back to before the judge the district judge and you don't have to rely on proffer you can call whoever you want to call the governor will call whoever they want to call you a cross examine you'll be able to put all of this before the district judge and he will then make the fuck presumably by some findings one way or the other the findings which i think we all agree he was required to and did to begin with your honor and i would appreciate that opportunity i do think that