on a felony count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance on march twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen the eastern district of louisiana issued an arrest warrant and on that same date mr moreno was arrested in california his home state he appeared before a magistrate judge mom who held a detention hearing mr marino was released on a fifty thousand dollars appearance bond subsequent to that hearing there were some other circumstances that occurred officer and in connection with that on april twenty eighth two thousand and sixteen judge mom issued an arrest warrant for a bond revocation hearing what was occurring at the same time was that mr miranda had contacted have retained counsel and his had contacted the eastern district of louisiana and made arrangements for mr marino to travel to the eastern district bioterror only and at his own expense and appear to answer the charges that he was facing in the eastern district of louisiana on may second of twenty sixteen mr marino appeared before judge roby for his initial appearance he entered a plea of not guilty and at that time the government moved for a detention hearing the problem we argue is that the detention hearing had already occurred and it occurred in front of judge among the california what affectively had occurred and the basis of the government's argument for the tension in front of judge  was what had transpired from the time that the original detention hearing had been held and the time of his appearance in the eastern district of louisiana that amounted to a revocation hearing because the focus of the argument and the government's position was not the charges presented in the indictment that day instead it focused on his positive test drug test results for drug use his admission to a drug used to play child services and unable to twenty fifth arrest on state charges in california he she considered those things but that she never should have been holding the detention hearing in the first place but then when she did she considered things that she should not have said we should have is my question clear and i'm sure it's clear to me let's do it this way are you saying she had no i'm saying that she should not have held a detention hearing when one had already occurred and to the extent because the the bond and all everything that had transpired in california was transferred to the eastern district and at that point i think it's within the court's discretion that the did the district court it within a just district court discretion then to review the prior ban that was that and to hold a revocation hearing if it was deemed appropriate allowing to travel yes but are you telling me that something transpired between the time he was before the magistrate in california and the time it was before magistrate ropey yes several things that transpired are and there are and so now you're saying one she never should have had a detention hearing anyway despite that the occurrence of these other events and then too she should have considered those things it should have been a revocation hearing for the district judge i think that the appropriate authority to review the prior to judge mom who are originally issued the bond because mr marino is only tied to the eastern district is this indictment he did appear here as i said voluntarily at his own expense to answer those charges and district court take the matter up for consideration on june second which was a previously scheduled pretrial hearing either circumstance the june eighth deadline with the second deadline the government's opposition to mr marino's appeal of the magistrate's order was due either on may twenty fifth or make thirty first no opposition was fi and in fact we urge that the only reason the government filed it was at the prompting of the court saying where sure you're filing or is this unopposed motion absent that push our position is that the applicable to that locality that district yes and here your complaint is that she heard something that had previously been heard by a magistrate in a different room in a different district more gentleman james bear on behalf of the united states i am the trial counsel as well in this matter may please the court decision made by judge roby and affirmed adopted by the district court was the right decision made by the right magistrate judge and affirmed by the correct district court and to adopt the defendant's position in this matter would to be would be teed to make the bailiff format which has a purpose of minimizing flight risk and minimizing the danger of the community outlined the timeline involved here but just to focus in on the decision that was made by judge angle hard he made a decision that was under do novo review he could have held additional hearings but he relied upon the decisions made by judge roby and he was correct to do so defendant had a double presumption against him when he showed up in in judge robi's courtroom there was a warrant out for his arrest in california he showed up on monday may second and at that time he not only had been indicted for a controlled under his argument he would be detained and then shipped back like you said to the central there's a california rather than a judge robi making the decision here which was affirmed adopted by the district court we don't believe that's required by either the local rules the federal rules of criminal procedure or the bail reform act of one thousand eighty four in terms of the local rules local rules are by their nature local they're merely administrative and other aspects of the role of the local rules section c and section d of five point one of the local rules say you can use the and i want to kind of focus in on the federals of civil procedure and the bill reform act to argue that that meant this magistrate judge roby had every right to do what she did and in fact that is the best approach from a policy and practicality perspective under the federal rules of civil procedure under rule forty c and the precedent in this case says we've got to read both the federal rules of civil procedure and the bill reform act together under rule forty c a magistrate judge to make a decision  about detention of an individual and if we look at rule forty c has been modified it several times in two thousand and two there are some amendments to it but if you look at the old rule forty and parts of all forty c went to different other federal rule five some one to rule five point one but if we look at old rule forty f and the changes that were made there after i think you'll see that this is what this measure that is totally authorized and here's what old rule forty f said if a person was previously detained or conditionally released pursuant to thirty one forty two in another district where a warrant information or indictment issued the federal magistrate judge shall take into account the decision previously made and the reason set forth therefore if any but will not be bound by that decision of the federal magistrate judge amends the release of the tension decision or alters the conditions of release the magistrate judge shall set forth the reasons therefore in writing and again the commentary to the changes and the rule new rule for forty c say that those changes are merely stylistic not substantive so the same basic principles apply and the government cited several times united states  the strongest opinion on this on this matter and in that case they pointed out that the purpose of the rules is merely to get the individual in the arresting district to the originating district where the ultimate decisions are going to be made about all aspects of their case  detained whether what is will be released and what will happen further down the road down the line the district where the prosecution is pending is the district that has the significant interest in the case they brought the case and they're the ones where those final decisions have been made the under under the government's reading the defendant argues that the government gets two bites of the apple but under the government's reading the defendant gets gets two bites as well when they're brought to this district this magistrate judge at that arraignment has the ability to hold a detention hearing the magistrate shouldn't have made a ruling that the magistrate did in the in the originating district other than the arrest district but then said even if there was no prejudice shown and and the district court's adoption basically cleanses any any potential problem with the procedure the government's position is that ed way is the better is the better precedent then then cisneros on the issue of the magistrate for just some basic policy impractical reasons in this there are many cases that are multi defendant indictments or individuals or throughout the united states when they're first arrested do we want do we want to have to appeal those decisions back to many other districts we have ten defendants does the government or the defendant have to appeal to ten different district courts and districts or doesn't it make more sense to send to send them back through the charging district of the district or prosecution is pending in this case it's not just merely theoretical aspect it happened in this case as well there was an individual in this case in florida who was who was charged and arrested and in florida he was charged here he was arrested in florida did we have to seek appeal in that court and so all of the circuit courts save one have said that this is the correct district court to hear the appeal all the all the all the precedent in the last twenty years except united states versus johnson so that this is the correct district court and the government's position is this is the correct correct magistrate and the correct district court and again failure to follow that path could encourage foreign should form shopping and flight risk individuals heading to other places and do we want one defendant to be subject to the jurisdiction of multiple courts i think you're repeating