this is a case that comes to this court is one of first impression and it is a challenge in the third to the reasonable ness of the coastguards actions and detaining a vessel in the puerto norfolk back in april navigation agency now in that matter through dispute arose because the government detain the vessel in exchange for a variety of demands on the owner and the operator of the ship which included a financial bond as well as non financial terms the question of whether the coast guard could make those demands is not before the court that was here in a case called waterville and at the time this circuit as well as the fourth circuit said the coast  opponent in this case now we submit that the district court got it wrong because the district court said that it did not need to address the reasonableness of the terms of the district court got it wrong because it said that the match planning of the owner and the operator is as a matter of law reasonable but the district court missed the bond i'd say missed the boat in this case because the only asset what we're talking also said that as far as it was concerned the question i knew that he was provided when he said the financials there were i don't remember the details i know for sure it was on audited financial statements balance sheets profit in  in the course where would you would you agree that if if these financial statements are not record that's fatal to her and i don't agree your honor because we would have presented testimonial evidence at trial for the owner of the ship and representatives of the the ship who would have come in and testify now the government can't take advantage of the fact that he didn't call any witnesses for deposition we identified it at least the witnesses were going to fide documents and subjects that they would have testified about record it can be found through the vessels flag state registry and there would have been testimonial evidence from representatives of the ship owner who would have come in and explain very clearly that this ship was upside down and by not being able to trade it was almost a mere near death for the company you have you say in your brief that the district court here is because there are many there are several disputed issues of material fact but as i look at those all the ones that you list or about process you know who actually made the decision what they actually consider the rethinking but why is that relevant this is the question is whether their actions the agency's action was reasonable and i don't see anything in the statute that imposes any process requirements it's just objective reasonable or so why is why are any of those even relevant right so that the statute talks to an unknown reasonable of the way right and so i agree that it's that the statute in the regs don't provide a process which the coast guard must follow in fact i would agree with the government that the statute generally defers to the coast guard and what process that they we would use but where i disagree with the government in this regard is that nineteen zero for each after the fact ramey is the safeguard or backstop if you will that the process the process standard right which the decision making process must follow and that that standard is one of reasonableness and it would be unreasonable and that's the way the statute written in terms of unreasonable it would be unreasonable not to look of the circumstances and we point out specific incident vehicle or coast guard in this case put their head in the sand and did not do things that would have been reasonable such as they asked for financials they didn't know only reasonable because there's no in ram right or quasar in ram right against the vessel for any fine or penalty that might be imposed against the operator already individual ready body else it's the property of angel action only back at the time they made the decisions to impose the bond that they did and say given the information they had the information they didn't have wasn't reasonable which time frame three s in this case i think it's a not one right but your honor our complaint goes beyond that it's not a snapshot of when he took the decision it's the failure to continue to reassess the decision throughout the nearly six months with the vessel sat it's a government allowed at this sort occasions stage disbelieve evidence submitted by the ship owner i think they are but there's no dispute that the only company that has an ownership or equitable interest in the important about that is that that's own the captain of the port captain john models testimony and he can buy d o j designation in the end by addition of other coast guard more senior coast guard representatives so that captain little was the individual with the authority to decide what's satisfactory and unsaturated what's reasonable most unreasonable and little himself test i find it joint ninety three ninety that the bond conditions that judge do more opposed  one point five million dollar bond which is the equivalent of the maximum fine against the shipper was reasonable he says it was not unsatisfactorily to him so if he is the individual tasks with the authority to decide what's reasonable and what's money's well what satisfactory wants one sas rectory and he says that one point five million dollars on the financial terms was a reasonable satisfactory figure plus other things which we haven't spoken about in this argument no it isn't it unreasonable to demand something more than that when the man with the authority supposedly his decision was reversed with i'm sorry i get his decision was reversed by the fourth circuit and the bit wasn't reversed it was here right that's correct ok so then how under under this statute can you you challenge it because very simply you're obviously the actions of the agency didn't cause the loss no it did your ar why because you're talking about one pile of money and the money can be paid to you could be put paid for to judge when to be paid for work to judge millette i can't give it all to you can still give a little bit to the other judges right so in this when you lump it all together it was too much with the reduced pond which had to be secured dollar for dollar the company was able to be known in the district court find you your client stated that even without the very different than making it reasonable the test isn't whether you can beg borrow and steal or make this deal to get your ship back in service but what it says here is that they are client was working very hard to meet the government's demands because it was facing almost assured extinction if they did they went out and the record would show if we had more of an opportunity to develop the factual record that they secured lending to put up the bond in the secured funding to cover the expenses which largely would have come from the ship's continual tree it would have been basically a little bit behind but as they would have earned money even fees from the ship trading they would have been able to cover the housing the hotels the costs and cetera so forth but without getting the ship into service without getting upon that was reachable without being able to earn future income the whole deal fell apart so it's incorrect to look at them as two separate and distinct obligations that was good enough  belt recognize that under the statutes the government can simply hold the ship until the criminal proceedings are complete that's reasonable i don't believe that this disputed it's also undisputed that here it was reasonable for the government to initially withhold the clearance so as the district court recognizes here when you get to the part where the secretary may grant clearance it doesn't she doesn't have he or she doesn't have to but it may  effective substitute for the presence of the vessel is going to be reasonable and here cassy his likability is clear just from the  secretary decision under nineteen zero eight later under nineteen zero four age how do we are we supposed to determine whether in any given case the decision they're not to grant a bond at all or to gra a bond that was too large for them to meet is unreasonable how would that ever be reviewed i think you just you have to look at the statutory scheme you have to look at the secretary's interest in prosecuting the facile and to the extent extent that it's within the secretary's discretion that the coast guard acted within its discretion i think that's going to be reasonable and what is what would be an example of an unreasonable one would be outside the discretion since you say they don't have to give a bond at all well let's let's say that in this case the owner and the operator had said ok you courtis we would polluting we are willing to put out the full amount of all of the criminal penalties and agrees then on financial conditions and the secretary said i've changed my mind i don't think i'm going to let you veer into a point that struck me about the just court opinion and that was the idea that the maximum charge and so it seems to be a stretch to think that any any fine specified in the statute is automatically represents the floor for reasonable this point on a couple of being made i'm talking about at the time right at the time nobody knows how the criminal trial is going to progress i say i mean at the time the initial decision was made there's only one violation charges and events kind of mov the discussions over the bond amount to going on i think the district court was absolutely right at that time nobody knows what the conviction is going to look like even if there's going to be a conviction because remember the point is to leave a substitute for the presence of the facile government needn't be any worse off than it would be if it had the ship and it can well you know any duty to revisit bad judgment as you get as facts develop imagine you set the bond and then revisit i mean how do we assess the reasonableness of this whole thing well eventually there's either going to be a security agreement or we're going to keep the vassal circuit so here it's a little bit difficult to assess because that was never actually sex and that's a day for eighteen to see if we could have another negotiation so at any point there's going to be some some doubt perhaps about if there's no seriously great mentors reached about quite what the office eness is as long as it leaves the government the same position would be if the ship were there correct which then has no adjustment for overcharging penalties that are way higher than anybody really thinks they're ever going to same position of those of the boat where they're sort of going to insulate you from everything right what the district court said was you need something objective that you can tell price of the beginning because don't forget these are normally taking place really over hours and days because the ship a reasonable delay is when the end reason melissa is trying to measure whether something was reasonably satisfactory to the secretary at some prior time he said i get i get that up front at the first immediate moments it might be hard but you agreed that you don't just stop and then over that you have to re evaluate the reasonableness of the bond over time as the investigation develops so what i say the test but is it but i think the just the  this after the fact because what'll happen is they'll say hey we gave you have a chance that we were in a similar government oh well we didn't know we were still investigating and nothing's going to be certain enough to keep the government in the same position it would be as if the ship were there until things are actually proved to trial are they well i mean he'll week i think that's why the district court said we know the government can keep the ship so it's reasonable for the government not to put itself in a worse position we don't know the government can reasonably view the ship doing yes we did i think we know that just from the statute because the statute says that the government has that were a vote the clearance that's not even optional for the secretary we know that the government may give the deposit to clearance and we know from waterville of this very broad discretion over that and the other things and i say never we know that after the fact we can evaluate the reasonable will mean less than even michel better than keeping the ship it doesn't mean that anyone will be reasonable but the district court was correct that any bond up to the amount of the maximum penalties is going to be reasonable and the reason we know we can keep the ship understand how congress could have had a statutory provision for unreasonable delay or detention on reasonable detention if under your theory detention is inherently allowed in reasonable well i assume that that said there's no issue about such cases are there and besides what difference does it make in this case i don't think it's in the record but it seems like that i would have to you know how many times ships are prevented from departing and and bonds in goshen i know it's a significant number so and the closest thing i have is the testimony of commander  know that the government acts reasonably vessels are willing to put up the money they don't say things like oh i'm not giving you any information from that operator because you can't reach its assets are ok thank you the ships and other five months plus now why is that relevant because the the government's contention is that the the vessel sitting there in the in the bond financial non financial terms  t the government in the same position as if the vessel sat and what i'm arguing is it doesn't at all it puts the government in a better position by sitting there the vessel doesn't require records custodian of the come from foreign offices doesn't liability of a ship owner here the government's asking for the ultimate liability of the ship owner and somebody else you don't need to do a very complicated mathematical analysis or forensic accounting action in a different case the government's theory was that the ship owner hired the operator or put the operator up to this this is all part of their conspiracy together and it again in different case they're both convicted k government then at the end of the criminal trial sees the ship not the ship with it is the government can certainly see is that assuming there's an unpaid fine by the operator there are other means available to the government to seize assets in the in  how is it reasonable to hold the ship and say that it's necessary for the prosecution no one goes to the ship all the witnesses are off how is it reasonable to hold the ship of security for a fine when there's no