case that the government cannot be allowed to undercut the interstate agreement on detainers act and its objectives by stopping the clock in an arbitrary way and that is exactly what we have in mr sheaves case as the court's aware the government in this case took mr schieffer from the nevada state prison by use of a writ and granted a writ has always been looked at as not a detainer in the cases that we have previously specifically and i'm talking about the maro case but in this case the way in which they used the writ and the way in which they took mr sharif knowing that there was a detainer on him from the pima county attorney's office in the same town of tucson arizona as this court just a block away the day after the pima county attorney's accepted mr schieffer i right in saying that they were on their way to pick him up the government instead picked him up three creasing or something collusive about this between the state and the federal government well you can really say in the brief i have i don't have any information specifically that there was anything collusive but i do think that this case is similar to ship to sumner in the sense that in that case the th circuit didn't have any evidence that there was collusion between the the prison the people the old mr sumner and the government that took him by writ but they said you know we can't allow these kind of things to happen collusion or no collusion and that's basically what this is the in morrow and other cases like morrow that have looked at this case the issue has been that the writ is not to detain or that the government files the writ they bring the individual the prisoner for a temporary hearing one hearing and then they send them back and that is the purpose of a writ and that is why a writ is not to detain or but if you look at the totality of the circumstances in this particular case they kept mr schieffer knowing that there was a valid detainer under the interstate agreement on detainers act just a block away from their courthouse and they kept him for over two years so you could i think you said a nd ago that normally it the way a writ gets used is person gets brought over and then gets right back i gotta tell you this just not my experience well judge in the cases in which we have mean district judge obviously and we have cases all the time in which you know somebody is charged in state court they get brought over to federal court on a writ and we keep them until we try well and i agree and you know from practicing in  the arizona district court i agree that that happens all the time happens to my clients all the time what i am saying though is that there's a distinction in the maro cases that the u s supreme court looked at because in those cases the was used as a temporary bring him over for one hearing and then send him back so that he the purpose of the interstate agreement on to tain or is act can be effectuated i mean basically the person can still get the services that they need and all the things that we have this agreement for but when you keep somebody for two years actually over two years before you bring him to trial on a writ and you know that there is a valid detainer under the interstate agreement on detainers act how do we know that they did anyone in the federal court knew that the there was a valid detainer also file because the detainer was file  i think the biggest reason we know is because mr sheaves case in the pima county superior court began in two thousand and twelve it was ongoing before the federal government got its its charges against mr she for a very similar thing it was an identical charges there were different separate charges correct but it was a similar thing was a fraud case as in this arising from the same facts no it was not in and in fact mr sharif had two cases pending in the pima county superior court and one was a fraud case definitely not the same facts i would agree with you on that and one of them was a domestic violence a felony domestic violence case and then eventually there became a rd case for mr schieffer that i was unable to figure out exactly when that came about but we know that in two thousand and twelve he's pending two cases he is out on release for those cases and he gets picked up by nevada and prosecuted in nevada while those cases were still going guaranteed the government knew that those cases were still going guaranteed they would have of course checked to see where mr she was at they would have of course checked his criminal history they would have known plus tucson is a small small town i mean the courthouses are just a few blocks away from each other the prosecutor on mr she's case was once at the attorney general's office for the state people know each other of course they knew and i don't think it's a coincidence that the u s marshals showed up to pick up sharif in nevada the day after or the pima county attorney's office had accepted him and written this letter saying they were on their way to pick him up there was no reason why mr schieffer should not have either been returned to nevada knowing that this detain or was on him or just simply sent across the street so that he could be doing that case keeping somebody on a writ for two years obviously is not using a writ as a temporary matter it's doing exactly what the purpose of the interstate agreement act is supposed to prevent it was there any case after morrow that says that sensually serves as the equivalent of a detainer there i believe all of the cases that i have looked at do say that the writ is not a detainer but again the facts are very specific in those cases as to how the routes were used and in fact this is the supreme court did look at the fact that this was a temporary use and not something to keep a person from having prisoner programs and so forth and getting on with their case so if the problem was that mr sheaf wasn't over in then you know the local county jail or whatever did did his the lawyer in the federal case ever say judge please send him back oh ill will come back when he ready for trial send him back over to state custody now so he can have i did not see whatever i did not see anything about that in any of the hearing transcripts that that was even discussed as to the facts and especially once you know this issue was brought to the line and a problem i mean if the price of the problem that you're that you're identifying is that you know he's being held in federal court and therefore he doesn't have access to whatever you have but every have access to in state custody the fact that his lawyer may have been making speedy trial objections here and there never said a police and then back over to state court i mean actually have lawyers do that sometimes and in cases that they say you know please send him back so he can get the state court case disposed of and bring him back after that and if that never happened why isn't that kind of a they were asking at that point that something be done that either the federal government on are the speedy trial act in the interstate agreement on detainers and allow him to have a trial or obviously the judge could have sent him across the street and put him in custody so that the state case could go on i mean the state case was delayed it it literally ended and got resolved last month started in two thousand twelve he was subject to this detainer the entire time ever since he went into the nevada state custody and that finally got resolved in november well i should say it's resolved it's actually not resolved  completely but it's at the court of appeals level so the state case itself has been resolved in that respect and that respect is now pending in the court of appeals there so for all of that time period and the interstate agreement on specifically says that the government should not be allowed to use a writ to thwart the purpose of the act and that's exactly what they did i think that you have to look at the totality of the circumstances if you look at i mean morrow in the court of appeals has made the arizona he's meet the united states supreme court the moral cases were actually three cases and in all of those cases the writ was used the exact same way in the sense that the government requested the presence of the person the government sent them immediately back the government requested the person again got him sent them immediately back and that was a big issue for the moro court now obviously in the rd maro case which was actually the ford case they found differently and they found that in that case there was an actual detainer and there that was used in that case and so i do believe that the logic of the supreme court is basically not that every writ is ok if you use a writ that's ok it's the purpose under which you use the writ as to whether you're using it more as a detainer or you're truly using it as a writ which is a temporary means of just bringing a person in and sending them back and i see that i have a minute left so lester's other pledgers a minute over your time but judge lee did you have a question that's why it's ok ok all right thank you the court i'm sorry clemens with you sometimes office for the district of arizona in order for the interstate agreement on detainers act to apply the federal government would have had to secure the defendant's presence within the state o by the use of the detainer that did not happen the interstate agreement detainers act simply does not apply in this case as such the district court did not a or in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss based on defense counsel asserts both in brief and here in argument today that the government knew that there was a detainer when we issued our writ and there somehow i reversed some sort of collusion st i don't think that that makes a difference in this particular analysis because the federal government is not bound by the actions of the state of arizona merely by the fact that we're both within the state the same state boundaries if that were the case if the if there could be transfer between the state government and the federal government without their needing to acknowledge the interstate agreement and that would seem to be something that's getting around it and i think that's demonstrated by the little make a case where in the district of hawaii was reading  defendant or had actually shifted chain or for a defendant from the state of hawaii clearly with varies but in that case the interstate agreement act was found to be pluggable although that was in the exact issue in the case but  the court followed its provisions in determining whether or not the time limitations had been violated do we know why the government used to read in this case rather than lodging a detainer i do not your honor however the  hell by morrow and collins the government does nothing wrong by using a writ instead of a detainer the writs act has been in place for many many decades including before the detainers act came into place and congress has not seen fit or seen the sing the writ that the state charges were in fact pending yes we found out later after the defendant had been transferred but at the time we should the writ we did not know that mr chief counsel was citing something about the fact that something happened one day after a so what's that all about from your perspective that's it your honor that that is unfortunately just a coincidence the wits act requires a government issued their writ and then execute it quickly and efficiently but the fact that the marshals did this at the same time the day after the detain or magically was finally after three months formalized it is just a coincidence that the government didn't do anything wrong because again the government can choose to proceed by means  writ that's how we secure this president writs typically issued to somebody right so who is it issued to here my are saying would be it would have been to the state of nevada ok which is where we brought him that's where you brought him from right not you didn't bring him from arizona nevada and both the state of it arizona and the the federal government in arizona are also charging him with different crimes that is correct because there are different types of crimes the bank fraud and conspiracy to make bring fraud is one type of offense was the federal government has jurisdiction over the burglary that the transportation domestic violence and kidnapping absent special maritime jurisdiction provisions for instance in the income country military bases the government typically would not have jurisdiction over those types of cases so we would not be involved in the investigation of those matters there are wholly unrelated and the government had there's no evidence the record that the government at any time influenced the stating that either spain or the state asked that the government issue their detain or as this court held in woods absent a detainer the detainers acts simply doesn't apply and the fact that it was issued by the pima county attorney's office doesn't bind the federal government under the interstate detainers act we are separate jurisdictions those kind of the whole point to require detain or when you're in state state or state federal so that those bad things don't happen where someone's just sitting in a in state prison custody somewhere not being able to complete their program while a detainer can sit there  this case we used a writ which was appropriate and we brought him over immediately thus alleviating any of the problems that could have occurred but the state of arizona and the federal government in this particular case actually in all cases are stubborn separate sovereigns and we're not bound by each other's actions in this particular matter and finally even if this court were to find that somehow the inner city criminal detainers act like there were there was good cause for the continuance of scar not all of them well i mean the continuance to work on a defense that would be used against him was not good causes to it's kind of sever the trial at that point had defense counsel moved for that that might show proof of something or prejudice the defense counsel or move for a separate trial there's a talk today about two years two years two years but most of that time was weighed by the defendant by either joining continuances or filing his own notions for continue this was a bank fraud case that had been designated complex expert witness to do the evaluation to determine if she met the provisions if you could raise a defense for battered wife syndrome all of those things would count good cause at no time though did defense counsel pas severance from at that time when this case was set for status on february th at that time the government asked for her trial date to be set at no time did defense counsel object to the date that was selected or that read by the defendant and would not be just time the extensions were necessary to treat the proper purpose which was to make keep these trials together the length of the extensions that he didn't wave or were not so learners the purpose of the interstate agreement on detainer act is to encourage the expedience an orderly disposition of outstanding charges over two years is not expedient it's not orally there's no disposition of his charges at that time so the purpose was boarded by the government in this case and also this court and the supreme court has said that we are to detainer to detain a person for over two years you are not complying with the purpose of the supreme court's cases a morrow when you're not applying complying with the case the interstate agreement on detainers act