morning sorry good morning your honour's yunis lay for appellant devon hooker with regard to the special release condition of a curfew that was imposed in this case the court was required to make an individualized assessment  residential treatment options that the that the defense had looked into for mr hooker and those did in fact include some of the programs did in fact include a curfew this in fact this is what was actually imposed was a curfew with electronic monitoring by probation from seven pm to seven am which is much more restrictive and in fact not be the type of program that the fair i was looking at where counsel said the plan that was proposed would provide mr hooker with a place to live  support for a law abiding lifestyle including abiding by curfew hours at that's that's correct that's as part of this particular treatment program that the defense was recommending for mr hooker that is something very different from the probation department imposing a curfew with electronic monitoring for six months the defense social work right up and looked into treatment programs and that something much less restrictive and frankly different from what it was  imposed and with regard to this this curfew by probation there was nothing said on the record about this curfew at any point on that syncing until literally the moment that the judge imposed it there was no justification given for that and  this courts make clear that with regard to special conditions particularly ones that are intrusive and burn them some that there is an obligation to have something on the record spleen why this was imposed and self evident in the record could not be well the late it early morning during it was light it was late late and during the periods when the this curfew would it would apply but i guess the idea is that the fact of an offense occurring at night does not of itself justify the imposition of a curfew that this had has not as you are also made a finding that the defendant was found early in the morning as a convict convict the phone and possession of a very dangerous loaded weapon that was  stated that in imposing her sentence she thought that at some explanation far from what she did well he was not willing to go to the special condition or to the curfew at all this happened at the beginning of the proceeding when the court was st going over the factors that were considered the court made a statement about how describing the effect the offense this is what happened he was found at this time late at night and then the court goes on to talk about other circumstances and his background and all these factors that then inform the court statement that and this is why  there's nothing in the record that ties anything that the court was saying prior to that to you know this is why you're getting a curfew because of x y and z that just didn't happen what about the association condition and with regard to the not associating with any crips gang member one thing the court said on the record was completely unambiguous and so the fact that the written judgment leader says it has a more general prescription of no association with any gang that given the fact that there are in fact cases where people have raised that on appeal as opposed to going to the clerks and in trying to get corrected without arms it's not as obvious as you're arguing it is here  it's we feel that the fear is very obvious that the government actually disagrees and so to the extent that they are disputing that this was not in fact a clear mistake that was the reason that we raised this argument specifically i mean would they be any objection to the condition would want to associate with gang members the problem is the broader condition is the greater the fear the opportunity for him to be in violation and we end up back in prison so it's not a question of does hear from really want to associate with with other ga it's is this so broad that it's making his time on to provide at least that much more difficult and that much more restraint look of course the reality is that at any point once he's on supervisory release he can ask to have the conditions modified changed  absolutely but i think in the st instance as far as what probation believes his restrictions are and what's going to be applied when he st is released from prison that has to be in conformance with what the judge said and if that's changed later that's that's a different matter thank you we'll hear from the government that you've been through virtually the doorsteps of a middle school the defenses judge reggie pointed out recognized that there was a need for a transition period because it was difficult for the defense counsel to transition from being a gang member to being a law abiding member of society the record is self evident that there is a need for a curfew or certainly no planer and imposing it with regard to the gang condition the judgments read together with a standard condition of supervisor lease and a sensing hearing forbid defendant from associating with individuals engaged in crimes the court did not expand any condition that statement in the judgment were not looking to expand that condition but what about the argument that it's that this is  is just too vague gang to include a lot of things including people who are not engaged in crimes perhaps they could i think in theory but not in this case not with this judgement when read with condition eight and when looking at the discussion the court had about  condition eight modify a special condition that he can essentially we get condition it says he's not to communicate or interact with someone that he knows engage in criminal activity so that's covered you don't need a special condition if that's all you're after this is a specific condition that he can't associate with anybody who's in a gang or our position is not that we need this specific gang condition that we our position is that number eight already covers the gang association so why does this need to be focused on which is it covers everything else i think it's a different it's a message that sense of the defendant which is be at the sentencing hearing that's not the only pronounced sentence what is your response to that argument that the gangs the universe of gangs as opposed to the cr your argument for why this should be modified either on remand to the district court or even by court if you're agreeing that this is this is what was orally pronounce the cr condition that it's section eight and that goes on that theory then we can just tweak the special condition and that would avoid our concern that is our position and that's your position that that he can associate with many members of the crips gang who are not actively engaged in criminal activity that is prepared to allow that to not associate with crips gang members that is what the judge orley pronounced right what whatever they're doing at the time reasons the area here is that we really don't know what was underlying the course reason and so without knowing that that makes a pellet a proper part review difficult and so help me with that with how if the plan you propose curfew so in that sense your client was acknowledging the need for a curfew is part of a reentry plan why did jam and had to be had to explain to you why he was imposing occur the the program including a curfew that the defense proposed was not something as restrictive as what probation put in this condition it was not some how was it less restrictive explain that to me well it was not something involving electronic monitoring it was something where the program that he the residential program he'd be a part of yes there was a curfew and there be sign in and signed out and when it was not to the level of this curfew that probation was putting forward it was not and believe it said that it was from seven pm to seven am it does not argue to us that an affective curfew was not what your client agreed to a curfew that he wouldn't be monitored well what do you agree to a mad don't think you're suggesting that i'm not suggesting that but i guess  the fact that the circumstances of the curfew of being in a pitch is appearing in a voluntary social treatment program versus a curfew that's imposed in monitored by probation and it has more potential for  problems arising or him being found in violation and resulting in in you know him potentially going back to prison is very different from from what the defense said that is it seems to be your knowledge needs a curfew and now we're just talking about how it's going to be in force well i think i mean there really is no greater limit on his ability to come and go it's just how he's going to be monitored that you seem to be focusing on well i think it's also more than that the idea that when the judge imposed this curfew the that what the judge imposed was not i'm imposing i'm agreeing to the defense social work plan and you having that treatment and having that curfew had the judge done that i guess we wouldn't be making this argument what the judge it's like it's piggybacking off of the other proposal that include curfew i don't know what the i don't recall it the length of the other program was but again it's a question the judge was not imposing the defense program and the judge was not expected not explain why this curfew through probation for six months seven pm to seven am with electronic monitoring why that was justified and that's really sort of the key that we don't know what the reason was that the judge chose to impose this and that's something t