read my motion papers but when i look at the for a period the statute i believe that all four criteria have been met st and foremost is the determination whether the appellant is likely to flee or pose a danger to the community and here we have the benefit of a transcript in which the district court has already made explicit i think finding by clear and convincing evidence even after the verdict was entered that my client was not a danger to the community and not likely to flame and he was permitted to remain at liberty pending the completion of the sentencing proceedings for sixteen months after that verdict department of probation made the same exact determination and throughout the sixteen months in which my client was released after the verdict of guilty the government never once objected to either bail being continued or to he being directed to report to the bureau of prisons at a later date even after sentencing was complete doubt line has very strong community ties but in short he's the life ones near city resident with two young children and a family in queens in the middle of the covert epidemic he has not been able to go anywhere nor do i think he would be going anywhere so counsel several months after the verdict but approximately eight or nine months before the say singh was actually complete he retained me in record time and because of the covert epidemic the sentencing proceedings were prolonged  stayed in contact with me we ordered transcripts he ultimately retained me to represent him at the conclusion of the sentencing proceedings and we have now a full transcript we have the transcripts of the sentencing which was the last piece of the puzzle and the only reason why we have not engaged in a briefing schedule yet is because one of the co defendants has yet to complete his sentencing proceeding and because these are going to be consolidated appeals the we have to wait for him but this isn't this is not a this is appeal not for the purpose of delay might be i guess the argument could be made if this was a guilty plea but this is a conviction after a trial which was hard fought lots of objections lots of po verdict litigation so there certainly is a good faith basis for this appeal and now we turn to whether there are substantial issues and i think yours where the main dispute between my my position and the government's position is i don't think we have to show that we're likely to win or that we're probably going to win i think the statute in the case law simply shows that we have requires us to show that we have a substantial issue that if we were successful and would result in a reversal or  significant reduction of sounds and if we look at the list of issues that i've raised or plan to raise in this appeal we have sufficiency of the evidence weight of evidence review a six amendment claim for violation of the confrontation cla in part and parcel that is also a right to present a defense those issues if successful would result in a reversal in a dismissal reversal in a new trial and then we also have a sentencing issue which if the court credits my calculation and the objections that were made would result in much significantly lower sentence given all the above i believe that we have satisfied all four prerequisites for bail pending appeal notice the court to grant that  i've always tend to like to sufficiency the legal sufficiency issues but as i've done a deeper and deeper dive into this i'm seeing many many many objections to hearsay and a lot of admission of hearsay and a lot of preclusion of defense evidence that was in my opinion improperly characterized as hearsay which goes part and parcel with the right to present a defense so to me it's a toss up of those two issues at the moment putting aside sentencing which i always leave relatively for last but those are the two issues that i that i think are our neck and neck right now for the top t alone this court to deny the talents request for bail pending appeal because the pallant is both a danger to the community and had failed to identify a substantial question of law or fact let alone  wire fraud as well as conspiracy to commit the same for his participation in two substantially similar trip and fall fraud scheme schemes that caused real physical harm to the one hundred a vulnerable people who are desperate enough to fake accidents while fraudulent lawsuits and then undergo unnecessary risky and sometimes life threatening surgeries all because they like not a bit i don't think so your honor the government's position has always been in light of the defendant's witness tampering and after his conviction that he should be detained in light of the burden of proof that the burden that apply and the facts and which he insisted on his innocence and then claimed that the government had in fact suborned perjury by calling witnesses to testify against him now that's fact well not well while perhaps not the most significant i think does shed light on the fact that the appellant has been completely lacking in any contrition for his actions and has completely failed to accept responsibility which i think what does that you fear what's the danger that you hear the defendant's actions in this case cause real danger and harm to people in the community physical harm people who had surgeries that didn't need those surgeries well no i understand that i understand that are you concerned he's going to do that while on appeal exactly i don't mean to minimize what you've just said but what is the concern about used condom if at liberty on appeal if it's part of that your honor what the defendant insisted sentencing is that he was a legitimate businessman that the n g his business that he started after leaving the st fraud scheme with peter cockiness was legitimate there's nothing wrong about it and someone like that who has failed to accept responsibility continues in this course of conduct who engages in conduct that harms people cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community i think judge stein issuing his decision after trial was focused solely on the witness tampering point and the record reflects that after the government doctor attention judged i noted that while the risk about witness tampering is minimized now which is i think correct your honor and at that point the defendant was released on bail but that failed to account for the broader fraud scheme in which he participated for many years which caused harm to the community and he can continue to do so if remaining on bail but of course as the court knows you don't need to agree that the defendant is a danger to the community to find that he should remain detained pending his appeal and that's because the defendant the appellant has failed to articulate any colorable claim on appeal witnesses and eleven different patients who some of them who were personally recruited by the appellant to participate in this fraud scheme there was there was not a again the evidence was overwhelming as to hearsay the only issue raised in any future crime is dissipated over the course of sixteen months between verdict and the time that the sentencing is concluded all right but we review the judge's finding about he's getting care for clear error is i'm not sure i agree with that but what does it matter then that judge stein at one point found him not to be a danger we would we would be doing it ourselves i mean i'm not sure i understand your position here well it would be relevant to the extent that at least one judge has found already but what's more relevant is what occurred between the time my point was st arrested indicted and tried convicted and then ultimately reported to the bureau of prisons and the answer to that is nothing after trial there would have to be a basis in the record for making such a finding and i would say that there is no basis in the record for making any finding that my client poses a danger to the community