same standard of review that would be applied to each of those enhanced events it's a two part review process first this court reviews for procedural error and if it passes muster then it reviews for substantive reasonableness i would submit to this court that as to both of those sensing enhancements procedural error has occurred let's drill down a little bit what's what's the standard review first with respect to be obstruction of justice and with respect to the obstruction of justice  the standard of review requires that this court  determine whether or not the record supports the enhancement for clear error it's a factual determination here for a factual determination yes yes however i and doing so and looking at the two court cases that this court asked us to address today the factual determination that's to be made by the district court in making that determination the burden of proof is on the government as the government is the party which seeks medical or the in its judgment the ambiguity of the medical records and found that there was a failure but there was no finding of will from this on the record right that's correct your honor yes and  that to show cause hearing what was presented was described as a medical verification and my understanding is that document only indicated that the appellant entered the hospital at approximately two eighteen am the da was set for jury selection i was treated in the emergency room and was then transferred to another facility and continued to be monitored to undergo some tests and receive care now the extent of the elements know i don't know if that is in there or not because we don't have that document i have scoured the case file that was transferred to me by mr douglas just prior counsel the medical verification i was provided to the court was not made part of the record as an exhibit it to get through things beyond the original date of the jury selection one person wasn't shown then he had a request from defense counsel to continue to try out well defense counsel's request by my reading of the record and again i wasn't on this matter but my understanding is that the fence counsel's request was more related to require an additional time to prepare to interview witnesses have his investigators go out and conduct investigations things of that nature you believe contacted well actually i don't know i don't know the answer you know i noticed in the record there was a statement by a defense counsel that he was shocked that mr beveridge wasn't there so it seemed to be at least was with regard to the failure to appear or whether it was with regard to a future risk of flight because that seemed to be the concern as well that the government had raised at a previous point and that this failure to appear this is not  find by clear and convincing evidence that that action constituted a violation of his bail conditions however at the show cause hearing the court does reference that instance again just prior  the reinstatement of run for tooth yes that was my position i we've articulated that in my brief as well that the judges willingness to reinstate on with the added condition of electronic monitoring tends to chip away at must look and determine whether or not the position held by the appellant did constitute a position of trust and that's a legal question therefore the standard of review is that no secondly after that step is completed this court reviews for an abuse of discretion as to whether or not the appellate abused that position of trust that's a factual question so it's repeated for clear ever be a test for determining whether or not that success rate but that's looking at the result not at the actual act itself mr douglas was an airline mechanic an hourly employee yes he did have a security clearance that allowed him direct access to the airport terminals without having to pass through t s a security however at that airport as well there were random bag searches that were conducted rocker searches that were conducted by the airlines if at any point when mr douglas was transporting the cocaine into the airport if it was on one of those days when there was a random bag search it would have been discovered why is it was the case like the cases where the prison employee is smuggling in contraband into the facility and the theory of those cases in part is that the public extracts the gardai kind of thinking in contraband and hoarding with the incarcerated why isn't an airport like that a public place where the public expects that and i believe that that falls under the second prong of the three part test that is the degree of authority which the position best in the defendant visa via the object of the wrongful act and the  poignant part of that is the visa vi phrase so what that means is the individual must have the authority to govern that specific wrongful act so for example a prison guards is tasked with the job of preventing contraband from entering a prison facility if they are then committing that offense themselves then they have the authority of the that wrongful act and then they're thwarting that authority and airport mechanic is not passed with the job of preventing contraband that i think they both have the same security clearance yet does that undermine this notion of a degree of authority that you've been making no i don't believe that my understanding is it is not uncommon for people not only in kind of that was this position but in other positions at the airport to have that sikkim same level of security clearance i don't believe that he was elevated to any sort of position he's not a supervisor or anything like that and this is a good record whether there is anything  clearance was by mr goddard he testified and the only thing that i could find within the record that indicated where mr douglass fell on that spectrum was in mr bottoms description of how he had risen from the same position to the position that he currently held with the airline so it indicated that between mr bato and mr douglass i think there was three levels that mr baio had been opera moated through to his current position so mr douglass remained at the second until january eighth and she signs of it for twelve pm which is either out or near the end of the of the court day if if we have nothing else why isn't that enough to excuse any civilian emergency room with a minor malady any end up spending the whole day there i mean clearly that's proof to the court that the it's not just added something to my hypothetical right i'd like you not to i'm sorry and that is then you present that to the district court in the cause hearing and that's a cause that you show why your bond should not be revoked in this case yes and my question is why doesn't that undermine any goetia of will ishant suppose the medical records that were presented to the district court include the following the medical doctors excuse note that i've just mentioned that evaluation from by a medical professional at five different times during the fifteen hour period of time the results of an e k g which showed a possibility of a first degree if those if those documents also reflected that he was given aspirin could hit the dosage consistent with being administered to someone who had heart problems if he was mr insulin saving fluid if he was prescribed eight medications by the same medical doctor that excused him from coming to for being in court that day if all of those were presented to the court would that be evidence that they were the one was not faking it as had been alluded what happened in jury selection but whatever everyone was there on i believe is the fourteenth is that it became apparent to the government and in the spot that the court's attention that mr george was not prepared for trial forty one and i believe it was filed on january twenty ninth twenty fifteen it's not part of the appendix but it is part of the record but that document does reflect that mr george was dozing off during jury selection that at one point he app who was representing if anyone did and said to the effect i didn't know my client was also charged with money laundering in this case so we were it was brought to the district court's attention growing and in chambers receipt and if you look at pa fifty four of the government supplemental appendix there is a reference to the word of court which granted the defendant's motion a motion for reconsideration of his bond as well as getting mr george off of the case  that mr douglas presented no solid proof that he had a legitimate reason not to be in court and the interesting thing about the show cause hearing is at no point mr douglas testifies because if you testify the first question cross examination would have been why didn't you call your attorney and tell him you were not going to be here because a two instances during the show cause hearing mr george said i was shocked shocked by this and it's not b s and i expected him to be let's assume for a moment that he had a conscious thought you know i should've called and he didn't the good will from this has to be that he intentionally did not show and if he is legitimately in the hospital and there are hospital records and representations that's why as to the first question that i did great because if there's a representation by dr anderson that he's again i'm him shrank by the fact that i've never seen those those those medical records i am relying upon what was summarized both by defense counsel by the government's attorney which indicated that he had received concede when at the very least defendants i was kind of hoping that maybe there was a mistrial or something but we never got we were sure of the records we were never provided with those records as far as i can tell there's no indication on the record that they were ever make court exhibits i record that they did not provide solid proof that would excuse the defendant's excuse and that was clear and convincing evidence to find that he was a risk of flight with missing evidence is a standard higher than a preponderance of the evidence so that could support an intentional finding so he would concede that if it were he would the records we saw that there was a legitimate basis for mr douglas being at the hospital that that would satisfy in my argument is based upon what i've seen in the record that certainly it's or it's a finding of will from this that it was intentional that based upon the dish records finding that repeat i said what's the degree of authority that you would describe to him he could go anywhere he wanted to in that airport and he also had the ability as he told taiwan state will sue also worked at the same airport as a mechanic and you could not go everywhere in that airport which is why they needed was that he had a way to bypass security does that mean that we should establish a rule that if a janitor were in the same position and a swipe card that they would satisfy the position of trust when you we have to look the other factors you know which is where the position it would offend you can get it difficult with a car if your janitor's able to go anywhere in the airport and he's able to bring cocaine which is a very difficult thing to do everybody flies ob airports are security points their targets on there are there are there used by the public i mean anyone in this country in this courtroom can douglas was relying on this or staples word that he was smuggling cocaine into the airport when it could have been any type of contraband so you know i think when you look at the fact that during this time period conspiracy had a one hundred percent sex success rate not a single seizure of cocaine occurred and we're talking about hundreds of kilograms of cocaine for almost a year period that mr douglas was able to smuggle through security into the air for you give to a recorder and it was able to come here not here but to the western district of pennsylvania alternately the third factor under part of the third factor is reliance on a defendant's integrity  you know i think that implicit with the position in this case considering that unlike other mechanics the air or i want staples was the cocaine supplier did not have the ability to access unfettered access to the terminal that government did not introduce any evidence at the sentencing hearing instead relying on the records developed and i think that that's what the district court did in this case so you're saying that you know there we can't look at the specific findings that we can read in a trance or if your position is the evidence we can proceed without specific findings by the court on the part of factors i do respectfully of course i do want to clear up a couple of points made by mr hyde very first of all he reference codefendant taiwan state was also being a mechanic but not having the same rubble backs as mr douglas if you look closely at the transcript of mr staples testimony while they were both mechanics they both worked in different areas of the airport mr staples worked in the international hangar and his duty was to perform more major repairs on aircraft that were grounded for longer periods of time mr douglas worked at the domestic hangars and his job it still must go back for consideration and determination as to whether these factors were properly applied i don't so enter just briefly the obstruction of justice and hanson i think it's been pretty clear here i apologize for not having out been aware of those medical records you know mr ravi and myself were both sort of caught off guard by their existence and the fact that this court has those available to them but i will admit i am happy that you do but as this court pointed out it all comes down to willfulness and whether it was an intentional failure to appear and the battista case that this court appointed to certainly stands for that proposition what is different about what he said in this case here is that the teesta makes it he said it was clear that defendant was feigning a mental illness there was five mental health evaluation and four out of five doctors agreed that he was faking here it's not anywhere near as clear cut supported the notion that he was taking credit so if douglas was turned away at the door and told come on your fight that would be one thing but that's not what happened right particularly i would think you'd versus corey out of first circuit deals directly with that issue as was the period from a case out of the first circuit those hinged on the professional manager ial discretion aspect and i don't believe that this court had abandon that factor which is the first fact advisement and we will