this case the facts in this case undisputed everyone agrees including the lower courts and the government that mr holton is very sick highly suicidal and cannot receive adequate care and treatment in federal custody unlike a domestic criminal case under these circumstances once the hague these proceedings are over there will be no bail provisional out no no affectively no no meaningful court oversight so this effectively this appeal is mr holmes last chance for court review once mr holton is in custody there will be a special relationship between him and the government and the due process because then imposes a duty of care to ensure his safety the government cannot apply cannot comply with this duty they have actual knowledge of mr hilton's mental health situation and his suicide risk but they've conceded that they cannot provide adequate care for him the overwhelming psychiatric evidence in this case is that if the government removes mr help from his current treatment they remove him from the treatment of his psychologists and psychiatrists they remove the seven medications that he's taking from him and they remove him from the support of his family particularly his mother who's his primary caretaker and who is suffering from cancer right now and cannot travel with them if let's assume a hypothetical that someone exactly like you kill someone today  completely different well suppose they were caught standing over the body with a gun in their hand wouldn't they be taken into custody if they were taken into custody in this country the court system would be able to do it to provide bail if if they were if the person was not a bail risk the court system would have some oversight in these particular circumstances because it's an extradition proceeding under the statute once mr holton is certified for extra on the statute specifically says that he must be committed to jail or to await surrender by the secretary of state and so at that point i don't believe the court has oversight and i've read your brief is focusing not on the extradition but focusing on the intervening period between when the court would make its certification and he would get on the plane do you have a case and it was if the facts were that there would be no intervening time he would be taking from the certification to applying to scotland then is there any basis for refusing the certification i believe there is a basis based on the uncontested psychiatric evidence in this case in shimer expert has concluded that the interruption care to mr holton and the fact that there will be a delay in the care that would be received on the other side that during that interview given period mr hilton's psychiatric state will decline considerably and create an increased risk of suicide how can we take in his you're talking about what he would be treated in scotland i'm talking about the harm that would occur by depriving him of his treatment here and that harm is committed by the government of the united states not by scotland and because he carries mr hope and carries with him the condition of his mental illness this is not a case of torture this is not a case where the harm is committed by other parties on the other side mr hilton carries with him the condition and once once the government removes whatever is keeping him stable here which is his is expert psychiatric care but the care that his family is giving him which is basically providing for his basic daily needs and keeping him stable and functional and his medications seven medication which require extensive monitoring by his psychiatrist here in in the us once the government takes that away it puts him in a position where he completely destabilizes it's like pulling the pin from from a corner aid and waiting for it to explode it could explode here it could explode there it doesn't matter where it happens the harm is caused by by the u s government it's set in motion the actual harm and we submit that that is a due process feels that scottish conduct is at issue here i would submit that the galena exception should apply in colina the second circuit recognizes that the rule of law on inquiry may have to be revisited if the practice it's a pathetic to the court's sense of decency in this case the scottish government is represented by the united states and has made no representations about the level of care that mr help move us to leave when he gets over there it has said nothing whatsoever about that i believe that if this court sends sort of five extradition allows a certification of extradition and the government sends mr holden over there with no care whatsoever into sort of  be in touch with the secretary of state and try to present these arguments to the secretary we submitted a petition to the secretary of state in november of two thousand and thirteen  back we asked for a meeting with a representative of the state department we never received a response about that we have heard back is that they have received our petition that is all and our understanding from the government coming what did you ask not heard back and there is no obligation for the secretary of state to review the petition at all it could surrender mr helton without reviewing the petition and there's no review of the secretary's determination to surrender so this is this is our last chance and i would urge the court to grant reserve some time yes thank you court the court below found in this matter that there was probable cause to believe that mr colton attempted to murder robert force i think the record also fairly establishes to the course point that but for good fortune  forbes would be dead and mr hilton would be charged with murder now is standing that the court below also found that there is a valid and a political extradition treaty in place neither of those findings either the findings of probable cause government has no pretty extradition or pretrial detention facility they can safely housed this individual and you put in zero evidence to the contrary so given that finding how how does the u s government take custody of him at a time when the finding is that it cannot hear from well i want to be precise as to what the finding w because what mr hilton's claim is that essentially is that he will inevitably commit suicide if taken into custody and there's nothing that the government can do to prevent it throughout this proceeding i think the court below has been judicious and careful in trying to find mr hilton the best circumstances possible as this process went forward but what the magistrate in fact found was at the hearing in this matter the government conceded that inpatient hot and this was on the motion for detention in inpatient hospitalization at a mental health facility may be appropriate in in this case however there are no federal secure mental health facilities for pretrial detainees where hilton could be housed and treated that does not say he couldn't be safely in custody that does not say that there won't be efforts substantial efforts made to address his mental illness to care for his mental illness will it be as good as the circumstances and day oh i doubt that it will be easy but i don't think that there's any basis in the record to say that the marshals or the secretary of state won't make every effort to  expeditiously in exchange we would offer that mr hilton stay out of bail pending the secretary's decision and that was not sufficient for mr hill so we're put the government is put in the position where the only way to extradite mr hilton is to take him into custody i think that there are there is a record that there have been efforts while he was in custody to address his mental health concerns and there's no basis to find that is really a remarkable claim on mr holmes part that he can be taken into custody without violating his constitutional presented a problem of being suicidal and claiming that they will get an adequate treatment in their pretrial detention i assume that the government faces that type of problem rather quickly what is the government do in those circumstances well i mean the government does what you were asked a very simple question about so what steps can you take to assure that no harm will be done here we are answer seems to have been well look at what we've done thus far we counsel for what his treatment regimen is what his precise medications are who he's being seen by and the nature of the treatment that he's getting so that we assure that as close as possible he gets those same  right the second question is yes i'm sorry to interrupt you but we get your point the second question is you just said the bell extends until the secretary custody while she is considering yes ok and so the complaint really is sort of high that said don't call future complained about what the secretary well i mean i suppose it would have helped i suppose it would have also helped if that claim had been precisely raised bow number one but number two is i do think that that's a perspective claim i mean the claim i there a probable cause i mean the the the deliberate indifference test applies to post suicide claims i haven't seen it apply prospective i'd like to second point first with regard to the psychiatric evidence related to how he was treated while he was in custody at at why it you know he's still under government control  well at least while he's been here while he was in custody he was not kept safe he was only taken off of suicide watch after a magistrate judge well intervened and issued a court order allowing him to see a psychologist the prison facility would not let him see a psychologist and since that we have we have provided the government with a list of his medications and as for our treatment well after being taken into custody and have received no sure and says that the because we have to decide they'd like to address the psychiatric evidence though which is that dr ever shot i'm stated very clearly during her testimony that that the suicide prevention was not sufficient was not adequate care for mr helton in the state that he was in at the time it actually caused further deterioration for the first time he had seen and heard it all last three years of treatment that he's quoted in prison we have now we don't know that he will be able to get access to those and thus far based on the government's conduct we believe that you will not have access to those and with regard to the agreement on bail the government wouldn't agree to a stay and couldn't assure the court that they would not pick mr hope up and surrender him to scotland in the interim and that is why we couldn't agree to the proposal of the that the government had offered at that time again i urge the court to grant relief in this situation  doctors our understanding is that she cannot travel currently she still needs to be in treatment physical therapy once a week for complications from her from her chemotherapy and radiation and her follow up appointment with update the court as soon as we are able to with that information thank you you thank