forth three requirements that must be met in order for the exception to apply and in mr there morales's claims each of those requirements are met first the district court's order does conclusively determine a disputed issue the what the district court and what the prosecution of the district court to do was instead of dismissing the charges was to continue this forty two forty one d period which was not authorized under the statute so that the dangerousness evaluation continue commitment for an additional reasonable amount of time if the court believes that the person can be rendered competent within that reasonable time congress did not say after that that the district court was authorized to order an additional period of time and because forty two forty one deals so clear as to setting the timelines for the district court's authority if it had intended the district court to order additional commitment it would have done so it didn't instead what congress did was clearly stay in forty two forty six and what the procedure will be in order to stay somebody like mystery there in the house is release and that is by no means a certificate and the the statue but it's also clear by this court's precedent and whether the district court in weber of the district court did something very similar to what happened in this case they stayed the release of the medical facility so that evaluation and that certification could be filed if necessary this court held that that continued commitment continued evaluation for purposes of forty to forty six was and then the district court with a time period and district you're southern district that's a time period that may be thirty days they've done it indefinitely they've done it and the problem with that is that the district court is intervening with why is really the providence of the just director of the still anywhere he's being evaluated they're the ones that are more properly it put to determine what the reasonable time period is there other ones that are evaluating evaluating him just the defendant is constantly in their custody and that's the most appropriate thing would be for the director of the facility to determine that time period and three or four occasions and that's that we've challenge those are the three or four that we challenge and twice before on the district court in this case and the time periods that are set by the district court differ it can be thirty days again it can be indefinite there's no it's just depending on what the government moves in its motions all right  d morning honors john kramer on behalf of the united states your honour's under defendants novel theory of the provisions contained at forty two forty one through forty two forty six every defendant who has been found incompetent by a u s district court judge and not likely to become competent in the forseeable future must be immediately released at the end of the forty two forty one evaluation period if at the very moment the district court judge has found the defendant incompetent the director of the hospital in which the defendant is detained has not yet filed the certificate of dangerousness under forty two forty six so the defendant would argue even though the statute contains no obligation on the director of the medical facility to evaluate the defendant sent to them soley for competency purposes for dangerous well and even though the statute contains no time limits or deadlines on the director's filing of a certification under forty two forty sets the governments of nets the congress could not have intended that immediately upon the finding of incompetency of the defendant to stand trial that the defendant must be immediately released before the director of the medical facility has either the statutory obligation or a reasonable opportunity to determine whether the certificate is or is not appropriate so what's the remedy for someone who believes that well someone then and others to find a situation where you think your propre remedy the appropriate remedy as that if the defendant is order committed pursuant to the provisions set forth of forty to forty six that provide for the civil commitment of incompetent and dangerous individuals the defendant may appeal such a commitment over it's important to note that defendant does not give you that the defendant does not appeal to lawful lists awfulness of the finding of this incompetence does not challenge the district court's finding that he's not likely to become confident does not appear to challenge the argument by the government that the defendant poses a potential danger to others if we leased into the community the defendant does not appeal from a commitment order under forty to forty six because no commitment order has been entered by anyone in the case i want let me put a question a different way because i think we understand that remedy but how do you force the director of a facility to who either sort of fire an author whether the director under forty three forty six has an obligation to do one  two things to release the defendant if the defendant has recovered from his mental competency in this case that would mean releasing them back to the district court which under eighteen u s c forty one forty two even let's set a trial date or the director under the statute has an obligation to determine whether or not the person is a danger to the community if the director makes that determination that the person is a danger down under forty to forty six the director must file this is difficult for you forty six if it was  appropriate remedy i would think if the if the director of the medical facility failed to comply with his duty under the statute to determine dangerousness or to release the defendant if he becomes confident i would imagine the defendant would have an opportunity to file on the director of the facility whereas the statute doesn't get the director a deadline judge rhodes gave the director a deadline at the request of the government and judge well said that the director has thirty days to make a determination the defendant is dangerous for the defendant the director would have had to roughly ninety five this year to make the determination of dangerousness and if the director said the defendant was not dangerous and the defendant was still in confidence the defendant would have had been released a month after the district cour issue the certificate ever that's correct the correct to this extent the director is not required to file she took it and certainly there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate to fire the certificate however i think forty to forty six and forty to forty director of the facility has a statutory obligation to look at that individual who all charges have been dismissed against are on the basis of something on the basis of them on conferences and determine is this person safe to be released to the community if not the competency was decided including if there was a requirement that the director of the facility follow significant immediately upon the conclusion of the forty two forty one the period the bureau of prisons might feel required time i would submit that the ultimate decision and i think the legislative history indicates this of whether the defendant should be released at this point really rests with the director of the facility under forty to forty six and all the district court did in this case let's put some well i understand that money but i think we're saying the same thing there's not a unified remedy if he wants to determine whether or not the charges are going to be dismissed and he's going to released in one proceeding but i think if i understand court to different issues here right there with after the hearing in january of this year where dr newman testified voluntary they cation found that medication involuntary medication voluntary medication there has been a request by the if he if the director of the facility did not follow his statutory obligations yeah i mean the court's orders certainly i mean if the court order the director of the facility to take certain actions in the director's fail to comply with that order circumstances that forty five days might be appropriate or sixty days might be appropriate and i think perhaps going further for a strike but what jurisdiction whether a judge in california have over a prison director in north carolina that's a very good question i think that the court can now exercise some supervision you say you think the government has the or the court has the jurisdiction on the power and answer my question and then leave them with judgments follow if you say some jurisdiction well  evaluation and determine whether or not the final certification no he's not subject at all to they held in custody really between the lines that you don't seem to think the court really had jurisdiction either enter the thirty day limitation or the stay the southern district of california no longer has jurisdiction to other authorized for their commitment and the problem is that once one forty two forty six lands it's the director of the facility that controls the issue of whether or not to file a certificate and and it's important to note that the certificate is not filed in the southern district of california it's filed in the district court where the facility is located and that's because the district court in southern district of california no longer has jurisdiction over the issue of forty two forty six and and that's the key issue here that the district court does not have jurisdiction he didn't understand what you were saying you would have done something different pursued it of course and then it is determined that he is rendered competent after this additional period of time then they can bring the charges all over again against him and that's that's what we believe that the government and the district court is effectively doing is continuing the forty to forty wednesday period to find whether or not he will be competent at some time at a time step by the district court on the motion of the government to bring him back