relating to the sufficiency of the evidence of the original revocation unless i'm mistaken i'm concluding i'm pretty much assuming that that issue has been pretty well covered in our briefs unless the court has any questions about that i presume the major focus of this presentation to you today is regarding the lack of release that has occurred in this case and that well as as i understand it and i don't mean to cut you off on your point but i mean it seems to me that question is once the warden certified that your client was no longer and in danger that the statute required the district court to either conditionally release or hold a hearing in that neither of those things occurred yes sure exactly if that what the case is all about there maybe more yes or we our submission argument to the court that the statute under forty two forty three requires a due process step of shall release being automatically leese upon certification or if there is a question so to speak raised by the court or a motion of the government then a hearing shall be held to make a determination we acknowledge at such a hearing if a question is raised  there's likely based on case law on everything a burden placed on did to establish by clear and convincing evidence that under under d that forty two forty three that the bird would be on us and the reason for the court and for the record the reason why it would be clear convincing instead of preponderance is because that the off so joe when i'm in that's what i'm trying to communicate that i believe everybody's been clear thus far that if there was such a hearing at such a hearing the burden would be  not we ask for this court to order to reverse an order to release and the reason why is because the statute under the due process and we've we've side if out from the supreme court  which is the main case that we follow in regard to the supreme court has stated once there is mental illness there is no more mental illness or dangerousness either or you have to have both to keep being locked up once there is not either of those elements he needs to be released so the two of the statutory scheme under forty to forty three we submit is not that there is an automatic hearing to review a finding and it's found in and of itself reviewing louisiana law from back in one nine hundred seventy there was an automatic hearing that shall be held there is no mandatory hearing under forty two forty three so therefore the only reason that there triggers a hearing is if there is some sort of question so what we submit is a clear reading and interpretation of the statute is once the i'm certified it's in accordance with the statute forty two forty three that creates a presumption of automatic release of the statute or to the alternative as we all know if this if somebody wants to raise a question contemplate that well if there was a question of dangerousness but in this case you're saying that the judge could not have a hearing no sir i'm not saying that the judge could not have had a hearing what i am saying is that there is nothing before disagree and the reason why we submit we disagree is because the court says shall release even the trial court's judgment over a man to the medical facility say shall be released the orders of the court show order of the discharge of the acquitted person are on the motion of the attorney for the government our own its own motion shall hold a hearing to determine whether he should be released correct in the court never had which if the court if this court does remain for a hearing we would submit the evidence before this court by stone the letter ruling from the trial judge and the language there in this trial judges are hurting made his mind up without holding a hearing or looking at the evidence and so if this court determines to remain in for a hearing ok with that that would be a good consideration for the  court to do but that's always subject to public view in trying to understand the big question that we have here and i think the thing that that we bring that is the era before the court that this court is in a position under found to remedy is the fact that this certification was from april of twenty fifth date as of april twenty fifth dean there was a due process where mr dix was intitled to be released unless there was some question raised by the judge or by the government which then triggers a hearing and in the trial judge based off his own ruling disagreed with the report based on evidence that's not anything really be determined there was no evidence there for the court to refute the court and have them say in a nothing that selfsame by stone the nature of the office from thirteen twelve twelve thirteen years before i feel like i can't remand for a hearing is that hearing just a matter of futility as far as being moot because at that point in time is there going to be any contravening evidence as we breached we would basically request the court but if there is not going to be any and we know what the if there are now with the government had now the opportunity to canada or what have you been hearing no but based on the arguments that have been presented is the fact that we've already begun fourteen fifteen months since this finding was for a hearing to be held and if there is if there is a hearing and we have a trial judge that again and does not follow and we have to go through another appeal you're talking about a man being locked up in a mental facility that found chip clearly says not even for a criminal who is being locked up to be moved over to a psych and they still have an extra interest of liberty so that it's the due process and the interest of liberty here that we have on behalf of mr days i considerations of mr dix as liberty this court based on the record can make a determination if there is any contest station by the government to conditional release mr dix is not asking for unconditional release mr dix is solely pursuing conditional release that has been found in accordance with the statute by the warden and certified and also the probation department th is no stranger to the situation good morning may please the court as our brief states from the beginning we have suggested that this case needs to be remanded for a hearing we believe that in these circumstances the district court is the court that's empowered to rule on this issue i will point out to the court that we have discussed this with our office we do not have any evidence to controvert the certification by the work and we don't intend to oppose a conditional release of mr dick should the district court  rule that that's appropriate the district court wrote a letter to the warden stating that accorded made the determination that he wouldn't be responsible for this man being filed our brief we looked at it and said absolutely we believe the statute requires a hearing the main concern the government hands is that this defendant should not be released without appropriate conditions of supervision and that is what the warden certification sets forth terms of supervision he was on supervision before he went off his medication and had successfully completed that for a number of years and so our whole opposition to immediate release was centered on the idea that any release would have to be accompanied by an order for the setting of appropriate conditions for his monitoring and for the safety of the public because he does have a significant background as he placed a p i believe there is a requirement that those conditions be set forth on the record and that the definit would be given an opportunity to object so at this point i think that to some extent of his counsel in the government are aligned on the idea that mr dix should be granted a hearing and for whatever reason at this point the judge has decided not to do so up till now and it would be appropriate in our mind that that th there is no challenge from the government to the conditions of release dix has no objection to the conditions as laid out in the in the plain of the lease approved by the probation department in the  federal medical facility in fact the medical report states and acknowledges that they've gone over all those with mr dix and he understands the nature of those conditions and what would happen should he violate so we submit that the record before the court this court down because the court has two options under felt clearly the court has the authority in the power to remain and in order hearing one we would submit that this court has the well three actually this court has the authority because of the due process can have some consideration to actually render should the court want to or the court cannot remain und and direct the district court to order a release and that is based off falsehood which you know all you know so that that's that's my position