the district court did err by not asking the government why they're not proceeding under hyper because in fact the district court considered indications of dangerousness in deciding that the cell factors had been met and that's we don't want the considerations of dangerousness that the district court improperly imported into the cell inquiry to be at all a factor in the decision to medicate her because in fact the government chose not to proceed on grounds of danger but i do have to agree with judge ward law's reading of the record but i don't think that in this particular case i don't my client does pose a danger those factors weren't is prosecuting here involves reentry into the country which in and of itself i mean there's a medic might be a difference of view about how super serious that is but here is a valid in the wake of a conviction make a specific dangerousness finding what he did was say look the crime here was coming back into the country after having been deported after having committed a violent crime and moreover she still has those tendencies because she acted out my quote martin front of me so it's a consideration in showing the seriousness of the government's interest in separating her that is prosecuting her getting a conviction  also that the government's interest is in prosecuting a serious crime not a serious criminal and there is a great difference someone's prior record in this particular case under this afghans is not an element of the  going to be examining and disputing in contesting whether or not she had an incident in a jail whether or not her prior art is really one that indicates dangerousness if this is truly to novo review as it should be  attempts agree entry is within the four walls of shall we can't consider according to your view what happened at the hearing we cannot consider her prior crimes because that's my understanding yes because both forty commitment here is a special circumstance that informs whether the government's interest is serious it lessens it the possibility of civil commitment lessons but doesn't completely undercut according i think those are almost good guesses priors express words doesn't undercut but certainly wasn't the government's interest so i just don't quite understand why why i mean it may cut in your favor i mean it does cut its statements so statement that it diminishes the government's interest yes but how i read that is that the court has to consider is this a possibility is there no commitment or proper grounds or possibility because i record and in the arguments kind of just conclusionary how in your view would the possibility of civil commitment play out in in this case well actually happen with that should that seriously diminish the government's interest in this case i think that the reason that it would is because the courts would prefer a commitment is based upon an individual's the danger that they p some focusing on this because i personally believe that is your strongest argument that so the possibility of civil commitment well the risk there where is that possibility is abstract to me and i don't understand i mean in a couple of other cases that have been influenced by that possibility if actually explained how it played out what would happen and what would happen to her is that something that you would even want to we just making an argument here for the sake of the menacing the government's interest in the abstract i don't want my client simply committed obviously but i also do not believe that the the district court committing a violent crime and comes back into the country based upon a number of things and that i think there is a possibility of civil commitment here that is possibility of civil commitment in your view is that enough to say that the government's interest is therefore not serious i think that that is a consideration that s requires be explored that wasn't explored here so you say counsel that if this court ultimately finds that the possibility of civil commitment and the fact that it was not explored in the record below another concern to least in our minds diminish the government's interest that we need to remain to vacate remained for further proceedings by the district court to flesh this out or is it your reading of cell that we can just factor that into commitment similar way or the other i mean i i i'm just having a little trouble understanding in this situation where the unfortunate person does not have any family who cares about or apparently in this country and is is there in completely unable to process information in make judgments on her own or in our own  no clearly what what we would want would be for the government to simply deport my client back to mexico if she had not you know and that is what we would want and it just looks like jake here suggested that to the government and the government no yes and do you think it's a matter of public policy it's it i mean are you comfortable with the notion that the united states of america just dumps people with this level of mental illness on a foreign country is not my job to make policy judgments nor understand how is it this court it's supposed to be an individual determination applying the fork bacterias and in this case they haven't been now i mean it's and i do want to save some time for a battle but i think that the serious crime issues not the only problem the record wasn't properly informed medically nor was this was there a proper determination of whether was medically appropriate and i haven't even gotten to those but i  doctor says i'm going purely from memory and that's it that's it for the record page seventy nine and at exeter brecker page eighty he basically said well two people have been one hundred percent competency that he's seen this is what the district court relied on to find that he she would be substantially likely restored to competency based on this medication he relied on a doctor who didn't bring any statistics or studies have seen to be people and the own anecdotal experience and he said himself that excerpt of record takes one well this is all trial and error and if the trial related side effects occur we can fix that is not what sal rivera herrera or williams anticipate they want complete and reliable record if this drugs really been around since ninety four how could there not be studying in a doctor who was going for more than two people does not pose a danger for me then that the undisputed expert opinion was that she doesn't pose a day and you're in a structured institutional environment but good if if you were released i just so of an issue i know the defense didn't make up a big claim about it and it's i don't know here are opposing counsel indicates that we're supposed to focus solely on in this case the reentry crime nothing prior to that you're going to the prior instances that your reading of of shall in terms of seriousness re including the defendant i wouldn't but that's neither here nor there but it still seems to say that that is something that would undermine the seriousness assuming the government's interest is serious the serious crime and and i'm not simply talking about the potential penalties but about considering the incident at the jail facility as well it's also a problem in terms of his importing his own anecdotal experience into the findings family or about what happened with some guard at the m c c there's no possible way it's a legal issue then it would be a factual issue and in on itself and if this court decides that it's going to be a conflicting decision with what s on the trial related side effects and that really wasn't even discussed and developed and so i think that regardless you know in terms of the serious crime the judge it