for compelling reason that mr robinson is that heightened risk st of contract ink coated nineteen while detained at the federal detention center in brooklyn and then given his particular health condition motion for clear error it is our position that the entire evidence permits only one view but temporary relief is necessary to reduce the heightened risk to mr robinson of death from covert nineteen and that this court should be left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court clearly committed the mistake in finding that the risk of mr robertson's flight outweighs the risk of death or other dire outcomes i set forth in my reply brief and previous counsel also went through it in his motion to the court mr robinson's specific health condition and he also discussed the m d c the inability to keep covert one thousand out of the facility so i was not going to add to that now unless a court has questions about that  similarly as for the risk of flight and mr robinson's criminal history i'm not sure if your honors if the bench warrants from twenty five years ago are of the concern to this court  but if they are i can discuss that if there are questions and just point out that according to the pretrial services report and the new york state criminal justice report upon which the pretrial services was based both of which government counsel provided to me in which earlier this week the court requested there were seven not ten bench warrants and two of those seven were actually issued when mr robinson was detained so initially i had to think if you just a couple days to get up to speed on the case and i didn't quite pick up on that but since recognizance bond of five hundred thousand dollars that was discussed at the district court but he has two sisters and a brother in law who are willing and able to ask act i sure it are and that the conditions would be home confinement electronic monitoring and everything else that probation is able to do these days so as i understand it be able to skype visits with probation any in person visits that are possible and if the court were to deny the motion now  i would ask you to do so without prejudice for him to renew it if the change canal which wouldn't involve you know a bloody mess and wouldn't be as i understand it a medical risk but i don't believe that that's available at n b c i know the facility was talking about not being able to do a root canal and so pulling the tooth that would require going off site and up to this time that was not possible and i believe the governing council may speak to that because between us between counsel we had decided that government counsel would speak to legal counsel at the prison about that issue to answer your question nothing has been done yet ok i please the court martins or for the united states i was the assigned assistant who handled the underlying matter i would just briefly address the bench warrant argument that was address that was stated that  record makes clear that it was far from the bench warrants that were the deciding factor in this case in broad strokes the court was presented with the fact that the defendant had seven prior felonies the strength of the government's case in terms of evidence recovered and the defendant admissions were outlined the defendant's exposure to substantial terms of incarceration were outlined for the district court and that was all done with the backdrop of the rebuttable presumption of detention the government's position is there was no  terms of the argument involved involving the medical records that the district judge failed to properly review or understand the medical records the government would put forward that it's clear from the hearing  government appendix i believe beginning on page nine that the court indicated they did review the records they then immediately the court then immediately turn to defense counsel of record and ask them to summarize those records and defense  categories stated the defendant three separate sort of categories of explanations he stated the defendant was the c d c high risk he stated the m d c was he was m d c high risk and then he went on to outline a number of underlying conditions by my count it was at least four i was at that point the district court accepted those the government did not did not argue them in conceded that mr robinson was at high risk and the nd the court accepted an adopted all of defense counsel and counsel's interpretations of the matter of the medical records which defense counsel did not indicate in any way he did not understand the medical records the defendant was put in the best possible position and the only problem the defendant had is that the other side of the coin as i just outlined before was overwhelming evidence and there was no air detention was warranted and the denial was proper turning very quickly to the court's question regarding t s mr robinson was scheduled to have the tooth extracted on july th of two thousand and twenty when he arrived for the extraction he did he said he did not want to extract it any more and it didn't hurt and he refused to sign the refusal of treatment form and as counsel suggested we have been in touch with each other trying to remedy the situation and mr robinson has requested a root canal i emailed council i don't know if she saw this morning that the the m d c dentist is saying the tooth is too far gone for a root canal and extraction is the only remedy for the tooth but we will continue to try to fix the situation obviously it needs to be fixed one way or the other so and unless the court has questions i would rely on the on this question on this question on the question of release well judge lindsay as well as judge hurley well judge hurley obviously reviewed the matter to novo we went through you know the relevant factors the prior criminal history the strength of the government's case defense counsel at the time went through you know the seriousness of the conditions he acknowledged essentially as the record makes clear the the prior felony convictions the strength of the case there were some issue regarding the mandatory minimum at the time but again we in our briefings made clear that although the defendant was only charged initially with a narcotics charge that carried five to forty years we had not superseded with an indictment at the request of counsel given what was recovered inside the were unacceptable conditions those conditions were briefed at the time at the time regarding the current conditions on the government argued not only were they acceptable that the m d c in fact had done a a good job under the and that we had cited at the time the current rates of infection rates among staff and the remedies that were being taken by the bureau of prisons overall and in m d c specifically to make sure that if mr robinson were continue to be detained that he would be safe given his underlying medical conditions and what is the good of play in terms of proceedings how much longer will he be at the m d c before going to some kind of trial or your honor my my best guess would be that we still need to deal with suppression hearings i would imagine that application will come at some point shortly and then however long it takes to deal with that motion practice and have a trial so you know you have no guess you can only guess or i could only guess and i don't know if it would be accurate  we had provided a briefing on the letters that were being provided from the b o p specifically m d c to the chief judge in the eastern district and updating sensually some of the specifics as i recall there was there was updates on total infections among scarves i believe at the time we had already then moved on to people who had recovered total prisoners who had tested positive i obviously can't speak to what happened at the hearing aside from what i read but the and i'm not sure to the extent that i can talk now about updates since the hearing but our position is that n b c is not doing everything we would like to protect someone like mr robinson and in fact we've been following the daily reports to judge mascot and there has been an increase since even my reply brief in the number of both inmates and staff that is tested positive a slight increase and they've also increased the number of reply brief which is a judge hurley was very candid when he said he had just gotten the rather voluminous medical records twenty minutes before and had not had a chance not only to read them thoroughly but what he liked to do which is to really understand so i i believe that affected his understanding of the profound risk that mr robinson is that so even if he understood that there were some inmates and some staff at n b c that were sick and that it would probably increase as coded one thousand dollars journalists has increased i don't doubt the judges understood that i just think it really came down to a close balancing act and so what he didn't do was he didn't have time to really understand and that if i could just add to that the seven prior felonies i believe your honors now have the criminal record and you can see as well and better than i the prior felonies were all possession and an attempted distribution of drugs and mr robinson is a heroin addict so they didn't involve danger they didn't dangerous i should say didn't involve violence they didn't involve guns and they