didn't the court actually draw an inference that mr peralta head fled and then point out that nothing was said that refuted that conclusion there wasn't evidence to refute that yes judge isn't that different than shifting the burden of proof i don't think so in this case i think what the judge did was was relied on the government's conclusion a conclusion that this court does not have to rely on that it was flight the  that a factual finding that we know certain facts that are not really disputed he's down there in georgia living in a hotel when he's apprehended based on that alone could the district court not draw a finding that he left this jurisdiction in order to avoid prosecution or you you might dispute that as a factual issue but why isn't that a fact finding that we can only reverse if clearly erroneous i think well two reasons number one i think it's the conclusion that is the and to just say that he was found in georgia and at a hotel is not the factual record and is not the fact court relied on to conclude he fled the a lot of the the courts reliance was that he was down in georgia working and had and had left new york city after the f b i had identified him as a target of a nation and he had been hadn't he yet been contacted three separate times over the course of i believe two years he had left new york city seven months after agents approached him asked to speak to him not not arrest him speak to him regarding an open investing he accepted that offer if you will and said but i would like to do it in the present council but i understand the arguments that you have which seem to be quite reasonable arguments that there's another set of conclusions you could draw what he's doing in georgia and why he left but it's a factual question why he left well it is a factual question but when the court and for example is there any actual put aside admissible evidence i'm used to seeing pretrial services reports where it says the defendant works for blah blah blah corrent verified meaning that somebody placed a call and found out that the employer said yeah the guy works there his addresses he lives in his sister's house verified the sister says yes there's nothing in the pretrial services reports that indicate to me that anyone checked this account and it would be pretty easy it seems to me for the defendant if he was working for somebody to have a statement from that person saying yes he was and i'm not seeing anything like that now again i think you characterize the district court as putting a burden on the defendant to introduce evidence but don't we have these highly ambiguous facts where the defendant has only a minute left in my initial time i'd like to address that even if the court's conclusion on flight was appropriate and that this court didn't want to upset the district court's decision that these facts are ambiguous i'm not really sure it didn't end detention and there are difference between a flight risk and someone who has flown in other words there was a situation where you know you might say oh well is this where that he's got an incentive to flee he's a flight risk and then of course you decide what conditions would defeat that risk but where someone is found to have flown doesn't that change the ballgame they could change the ballgame if he had if he had not been pro choice several times about dismissed and the other options all right we reserve some time for about oh we'll hear from the government that he they come in to that they already find him in georgia before that he is looking for words he might have been working there and but that does not mean that he had not fled there well he was working under his own name he was working on his own and he was taking interstate flights back and forth between georgia and florida under his own name however at the scene where government officials look at but there are no active arrest warrants i mean if he had a an officer run his name and discovered there was a warrant and instead of turning himself in the hunkers down in georgia that's one sort of inference but there were no warrants from here to georgia is what distinguishes the package that had been made available to defendants in similar kinds of schemes from this situation is that right yes your honor i believe that his  you have two minutes to read to the one thing you're not hearing from the government with respect to whether he when he was approached and that  which i don't think the record he was fleeing as a he was fleeing as and hardy that the government truly wanted to use against are we really going to find that that's a prison  uncomfortable with that property i'm uncomfortable with the sister putting a party perhaps a different apps a dollar figure perhaps electronic monitoring which the pretrial services office of the southern district of new york is so there she considered she gave that very very little consideration she also made a comment regarding the proper well the property is insufficient because for all i know it's being for go back you still have the option to go back to the district court with more information or i suppose i could ask her to reconsider what would be a new application if you have if you have the appraisal for example  suggesting that that's controlling or anything but it does one of the things that's awkward about bail appeals and indeed about bail setting is that on the one hand nobody is supposed to be kept in jail because they can't make the bail it's only if there is no condition that can hold them on the other hand the conditions that they are able to make might not be ones that are able to hold them and so there's a kind of negotiation process between what might be the ideal conditions that hypothetically could hold somebody and what they can reasonably make up but all i'm suggesting is that even if we were to affirm on this record that would not control what happens on a is when it is the government's burden you find that i am engaged in the course of the court was more interested in my back and for that i there are some intangibles to it to an appearance before a court that can't can't be reflected in the record but i don't i think it's futile there is no set of circumstances that i could present i could bring in document after document to this district court and i don't think there's any chance mr perrault is going to forward it bail she made her