we will start with the motions calendar on united states versus dock made may please the court my name is randall unger and i am mr duckett's counsel on his appeal and i thank the court for this opportunity to present a bail motion in person before the court i submit that mr duck satisfies the factors in eighteen u s c thirty one forty three b for bail pending his appeal first he's certainly not a flight risk and i don't even think the government would contend that he is i think the government not at least not conceded that he's not a flight risk am i correct or i saw nothing in the government's papers to indicate that he is not a government argues that he presents a danger to the community yes that is that is one of their opposing arguments and i would submit that that's not accurate first of course i meant points to several incidents occurring after he was indicted yes one of them involved they allege that there was a transfer a wire transfer of about fifteen thousand dollars into an individual's account which mr duckett apparently used and had access to and there's no dispute about that what the government doesn't point out however is that mr duckett himself informed his probation officer of that transaction that's how the government found out about it so while somebody might look askance at that particular transaction and question well why was it done that way there was nothing certainly nothing illegal or improper about it certainly  people will engage in transactions and have other people's names used for those purposes for a number of non sinister reasons so and that's according to your view with respect to with yes and that was that was an error that he made it was a very poor judgment he went to visit his daughter in the state of florida as soon as he was advised by that i'm not certain exactly what the necessity of the trip was but again it wasn't for anything sinister in nature it was to see his daughter who lived in florida at the time and it was a purely personal visit  what is the substantial question of law or fact that he is raising on appeal i would submit that there is a legal insufficiency argument that certainly is a debatable issue when the court considers the merits of the appeal in this case for my review of i have to be candid with this court i don't have all of the transcripts of the trial as yet the court reporter has indicated to me she expects to have them available within the coming month but from what i've read particularly the cross examination of the most significant witness which was mr anderson he was a cooperating witness for the government it appeared to me that there really his testimony was essentially the basis for mr duckett's conviction when he was pressed he basically refused to concede that he had broken any law he testified that had the project not been terminated he would have followed it through to the end and he was hopeful to completed his testimony goes beyond incredible it simply didn't provide a solid basis for the conviction  and as i pointed out and i think as the court will see when the merits of the appeal are considered mr duckett never submitted any invoices to the city of hartford all of that was done by mr anderson the government's witness mr duckett had no access to the account which was controlled by mr anderson and as an associate of his so with all of those factors i think there is certainly a reasonable grounds to believe that once this court considers the appeal there is a substantial likelihood of reversal of the conviction just the remaining matter that i wanted to address was mr duckett's health i'm advised that he suffers from diabetes and high blood pressure and i'm not suggesting that the bureau of prisons can deal with these issues and he's inform me that he has been receiving treatment and medication but certainly he do a lot better healthwise if you were not incarcerated during the pendency of this appeal so i  for all of these reasons i think that this court should grant the motion for bail pending appeal thank you mr thank you will hear from the  please the court sarah carwin for the united states this court should follow the decision of judge underhill and conclude that the defendant james duckett is not met his burden under the bail reform act for bond pending release just to address where my colleague left off as to mr duckett's health concerns this was raised before the district court i would direct this court to documents one seventy six and one seventy seven on the record where mr duckett's own position a pined that his conditions were stable and that they could be treated and managed by the bureau of prisons in terms of the evidence that mr duckett poses a risk to the community because of his financial shenanigans this court should understand the financial transactions reference in the government's brief in context of mr duckett's refusal to comply and comport himself with the terms of his release he was arrested shortly before trial he was detained by the court and then only let out under very strict home detention conditions and the p s r details mr duckett's ongoing misrepresentation so the court and to the probation office his use of third parties to conduct transactions when facing significant financial restitution and his lack of employment and also his lack of candor to the probation office where he was representing involvement in significant financial projects that simply  not true the probation office summed it up to the court in its pretrial submission excuse me in its pre sentencing submission when it said quote it generally is concerned about the risk mr duckett continues to present to the community and asked for that he be remanded after sentencing in terms of the substantial question of law or fact it is essentially a credibility attack on mr anderson which will not likely be successful on appeal but this court should also review judge under his decision where he outlined the evidence at trial which included the testimony of several other witnesses as well as e mails which mr duckett was a part of so even setting aside mr anderson's testimony there was ample evidence of mr duckett's involvement in this fraud his intention to defraud the city of hartford and its subcontractors and that will form a more than sufficient basis for the jury's verdict to be upheld