or not the district court applied the appropriate standard of review the magistrate judge entered a forced medication order with our jurisdiction under article three and twenty eight u s c six thirty six and bu seeing those violations was the district court's erroneous standard of review plighted you know both standard of review and used his independent judgment to decide the facts and the law well then let me ask the question was got washed away in the tide no less true that's true but the a certain kind of tell what the facts were in terms of the standard of review and with the magistrate judge's order in the district courts consideration of that and it looks like the district court review the record reversed the magistrate judge's findings for insufficient evidence and if you look at the it's your opinion it's at two eighty two f third at five sixty five it looks like the district court may have a plan i don't know about standard when it reviewed the magistrate judge's decision and that's kind of buttressed by the a circus decision on the standard of review that they employ which was also to know so i don't think that there was any reason for the supreme court to address it and sell itself just does not eliminate the issue so this issue is something that can be decided by th application of constitutional principles to different facts in the law and by applying the clearly erroneous standard in this case the district court the third independent obligation to as far as the cell issues are concerned i mean we have a district court order so this court has jurisdiction and still makes clear that this court has jurisdiction to hear pretrial orders of district court the problem that we're faced with here is really inappropriate standard of review on the part of the district court not with this court's lack of jurisdiction and i think that that is in the sense that it's discussed the standard of review that the district court employ in reviewing the magistrates order court here is the fact that the sell decision and supreme court decision last year set forth the standard that this court needs to consider in terms of whether or not involved her medication is appropriate in order to render a defendant use it credibly iranian standard wouldn't we still need to send it back for reconsideration if if the court believes that there was no error below it could a firm decision of the district court allow that order to stand and permit the medication of mr rivera in this case is the appropriate standard and in fact i know there was a discussion with respect to the cell case itself and the underlying history in the cell case the magi factors that need to be considered cells now set the standard that the lower courts are to follow and those factors are that an important government interest exists that medication will significantly further that government interest that medication is necessary is a crime to violate the immigration laws of the country and enter the country illegally and the crime is only does that for maximum increases when you have prior convictions for felonies as this defendant does for burglary for attempted kidnapping we have a typical drugs are dry eyes dry mouth now doctors would resort possibly to the older generation of anti psychotic drugs if the newer drugs are not effective but they would initially try to use case and given the nature of the illnesses and given the nature of the medications there is a bit of trial and error to it but the point is they start with low levels of medication trying to five what is the most effective see if there's any possibility that he may be able to become confident without any sort of resorting medication and those doctors in their observations of mr rivera believe that this this is an instance where medication is appropriate medically with respect to this individual defendant what considerations of the nature of this defendant as an individual the preference is to use the new were drugs because those drugs are less likely to have any sort of complicating side effects it ma body the doctors like to avoid that they'd like to see if this defendant could be treated first with a drug with far lesser side effects lesser potential for side effects and then if it turns out those drugs are not effective they would have to use a drug that might very often the individuals words here no prior criminal history their ministry of rape removed back to their country of origin in this case the government has initiate a prosecution against this defendant because there is a strong government interest in this case and the government often finds a strong government interest in thirteen twenty six cases where the defendant has been deported after being convicted previously of an aggravated felony in this case there are two that i submit to the  given medication or that he's given medication and there's not there's not respond to it then what happens till i'm busy stay in springfield forever or or what does he have to be released back to mexico or what happens your honor given the status of this defendant a citizen to other public of mexico the doctors if if they're unsuccessful with treatment regime of medication and in trying different different medications they're unsuccessful he will be removed back to his country of origin nonetheless judge jones wrote about a twenty five page opinion in which he went through very carefully each of the cell factors why he thought what he thought what's the likelihood if we sent it back and say no you should have had a different opening salvo on the first page here about your standard or review what's the likelihood that anything would come out differently it's not really clear because if you look at every single point where judge jones reviewed magistrate judge porter's evaluation he was acting as an appellate court he just was not something tooting his own judgment at every single point he says judge porter didn't care or didn't clearly error or she did her decision what you contrary to law you know i just record three thirteen so if judge jones was very careful not to step on judge porter's well you might find that in opinions same way but i just wonder alternately where well the answer is and why we shouldn't just review it now on its merits because judge jones never considered and he never exercised his independent obligation to decide the constitutional issues as well as the factual issues like in the first instance act and of course the court who has original jurisdiction over over when a court deals he completely deferred to judge corners decision on this issue that is why this court should move to reverse this case romance a judge jones so that he can decide in the first instance each of the cell factors of opposing counsel brought up the question about whether or not the district court in apply the clearly erroneous standard it's not clear to me from the supreme court's decision in itself or from the a staircase decision in sell what standard of review was applied there but i do believe that under six thirty six a magistrate judge does not have authority in the first instance to issue and order authorizing force medication what is required is i mean what should happen here is that the magistrate judge should have issued findings and recommendations we should have been given an opportunity to present our objections to the district court the district court could have review whether or not he wants to hold an additional eviden medication under the government's arguments here it would require or occupies the government to have forced medication every single illegal entry case it's a clear and convincing evidence standard is to have any teeth whatsoever what  required is evidence in the record that shows particular defendant and i want to doubt his prior felony record what about his prior felony well that is not an issue that was really litigated below the government argued in the district court that he just has families and that they want either the salaries and that he was subject to a ten year statutory maximum but now they're arguing to this court that they are in fact aggravated felonies as you're aware the question of whether or not a case