proceedings. That language means that this exception no longer applies to Mr. Nieto, given that ten years have lapsed since his “release.” Therefore, Mr. Nieto’s fate is now governed by subsection (a), which does not mean he will be released — only that he is now entitled to a bond hearing. B. There Is No Binding Precedent Neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit has ruled on the issue before the Court today. There is no binding precedent to direct the Court’s analysis. However, numerous district courts have addressed this issue. By this Order, this Court adopts the “plain language” approach and outcome of the clear majority of the district courts that have ruled on this issue , including courts within the Tenth Circuit. See Valdez v. Terry, 874 F.Supp.2d 1262, 1276 (D.N.M.2012) (<HOLDING>); Ortiz v. Holder, No. 2:11 CV 1146 DAK, 2012
holding that mandatory detention did not apply to alien and ordering an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 usc  1226a holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed holding that an alien must be released unless the government demonstrates at a bond hearing that the alien poses a risk of flight or a risk of danger to the community recognizing that at a bond hearing there is no limit to the discretionary factors that may be considered  in determining whether to detain an alien pending a decision on  removal