i'd like to focus in if i may on condition number for special condition of birth for which addresses the prohibition of my client having contact the children if i have to find your own if i'd like to make a few comments with regards to the risk notification issue which i understand that this court is awaiting the trip a county decision to come out so if i have time i'll make some comment on if i may beginning with special condition of or for my client has been prohibited from having deliberate contact with children during the terms of the supervised release which is ten years the district court opined on the record that my client was a danger to the community because of his admitted attraction to young girls and the court case that he believed to be a teenage girl and also sent to her for him whether it was an inappropriate photos and tell the body part then there were two other occasions one where he observed a fifteen year old girl she was the daughter of his boss at the if there had been objection would have made would have tried to tie these factors together to support the imposition of factor number four and in our estimation looking through the lens of the five hundred and eighty three this would not have  statement that she was saying which she considered to be a relatively short period of incarceration in light of the volume and nature of the material that elicit material that your client had accumulated over an extended period of time and that if an appeal of the conditions that many conditions that were safety and the community based on the volume and some of the activities he had including once you've just described and you know the record is still striking in terms of the volume of interactions rather than just computer driven images and the district court seem to feel very strongly about this based on these this combination of events so i find it couple things about that apparently what the district court was most concerned with was the nd circuit kind of clipping the wings of the probation department and their discretion they used as an example it was just an example the mental health condition which this court has recognized to be an onerous one because of the deliberate contact with children really means that literally going to a place that you know there are children and that brings with it of course but you as you just played it is or can be if the reasons are obvious from the records still justified and i think you pointed to the pieces of the record that seemed to be the justification for that condition and you said it's not enough but why isn't it the case this spying on his sister and taking her underwear and receiving sexual gratification for little of her friends underwear is like interaction with minors that is looking towards going towards the goal of sensing that is to protect the public we look at the conditions of this individual he's never been accused of doing anything in public before and the conditions that are being i imposed otherwise separate from a number condition number four re have all of the conditions on his computers going to be monitored not just for website but also for financial transactions we have the had to be employed during the time period he had given no indication that he would do things in public and this was something that was important to the whole world but finally the sister and her underwear and her friends in the where might not be in public but it involves other people so the examples you know maybe there are some other teachings in attendance but but maybe does apply to these kinds of gatherings and can teach and get pre approval with him to the district or have the opportunity to make it more narrowly focused as he enters his term supervise protect the child what we're saying really is deliver contact with adults for our children and while it's true that the items that i mentioned in the items that are in the probation report are things that someone would certainly need help  they do not indicate that he would do things in public and in light of that discourse had to do an individualized assessment which it did not and there's sufficient but no greater than necessary  are concerned about sea spying on the sister and then to change her underwear and those kinds of interactions which are not out in the public but they're public in the sense that it involves other people and wanted to prevent him from having contact with children under those kinds of might fall it's not that there's no concern here of course this concerns the concern is is he going to act out in the public square because that's the concern that is addressed i believe mostly in the st sentence of condition number four now that there are things to be addressed to the monitoring through counseling to all the things that are being otherwise imposed all the things that this court has addressed in the past and has said this is the situation we have to be careful is sufficient but no greater than necessary i condition you'll or was not raised in the district court is arms that's completely accurate judge what i would refer to and to answer your question the analysis that was done of the blue decision and i'll try to make this very quick blue rationale is plain error because it is not obvious from the record why such a condition was written recently necessary no word yet plainer applies but i would add too that this court applied in the way that it was applied in blue kind of a relaxed the court my name is tiffany lee and i represent the united states can everyone hear me yes ok thank you in this case your honour's the district court did not abuse of discretion when imposing the majority of the special conditions of supervised release that are at issue and this court should affirm the sentence as this court has noted when it comes to imposing conditions of supervised release the district court generally has wide latitude so long as the conditions are reasonably related to certain statutory factors governing sentence and so long as the deprivation involves no greater excuse me the condition of those involved no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for purposes of sentencing as an initial matter i was not going to be addressing the rd party of risk notification condition at all in light of this court's statement not right on that issue and given all the myriad of cases involving rd party risk notification between this case and mr trafficante his case i would defer making any argument  analysis in that no objection have been able no such a question before this court is whether the district court's imposition of condition number four is error whether the error is clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable to spin and whether the error affected strongly only substantial rights which in the literary case means it could have affected the outcome of the district court proceeding and then finally whether they are seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings given all of that the question in blouse what is whether or not in that case blouse the district court did not there was nothing evident in the record to support in pos a condition involving contact with children this is not the case here here the district court specifically outlined in cages one hundred and twenty four and one hundred and twenty five the appendix why that condition was necessary and she basically culminates with her statement that you mr leon's pose a danger to the community and in particular a danger to minors because of the fact that not only based on the volume of material that you possessed the type of material you because i asked but also through your history and background you had had instances in which you have been in situations in person where you've dried sexual can help me understand exactly what this man is not supposed to do can clear example we go to a baseball game to a walk through a mall because his values to kill them all the time that's true that's the issue because it's because it's deliberate contact your honor it's like deliberate you know deliberately going to a place to live or a plea going to a place that he knows that he's not supposed to be going permission from his a probation officer in public because certainly in the computer public sphere he's had interactions with people where in which he's discussing his interest or you know acquiring images of child pornography you know we've had instances in the district in which someone would argue or someone would report right away to their probation officer i ran into i went to a park or s t d i went to  hundred feet of school yards playgrounds arcades or other places primarily used by children under the age of eighteen the st part of it says the defendant shall not have to live or contact with any child under the age of eighteen excluding his biological or dot to children unless approved by the probation officer or by the court so your borders example would follow what arguably fall under the nd prong but i would articulate that he would not get in trouble because again i don't think it's necessarily a place that's primarily used by children children to go but it's not a place primarily used by them so i think that was where the severely strained all of us are you know if you season tickets i've never been t children are there i know but i don't think that i don't think that that dependence is necessarily prohibited by going to a game had yankee stadium indeed this this condition has been around for some time and you know i  have not seen it invoked in terms of a violation by way of because of a defendant under supervision has gone to baseball  but the issue here is whether or not the district court has the discretion to impose such a disk such a condition it sounds like from your from what you just said that you think that what the condition prohibits is from him deliberately going to a place primarily used by children or deliberately going to a place specifically to meet with children but if he's going to a place that is used by his goals for children happened to be there it would not be a violation of the condition is that correct correct what is it that that's not what the judge said that's not what the order of the how the condition reads albeit i think that's special condition where a judge has concerns about contact with children or is something unusual no it's not something unusual you're your honor the wording is it's pretty much standard i  head but it was it was limited to specifically describe you know places primary or other places primarily used by children  was just simply imposing that she was well st of all this was not one of the conditions that had been objected to before the district court so it's not as if the district court even had the opportunity to assess because  court was threatening i think she was just simply stating the fact that when she was considering a sentence for this particular defendant these were all the this was within the panoply of options she had she could have given him a longer sentence upfront with iowa shorter period of supervised release with different conditions but to the extent that if she had to go back to the drawing table she may re evaluate in terms of the length of the sentence she would want daughter to knitting to consider everything again the whole d c had a particular objections also to how the got a special condition is phrased those are something that she could address as well correct and you could or i thinking he can always go back to the district court and say listen i have i don't die where i want this modification because this is you know i do not understand like i'm being told i could go by one person then someone else is telling me i can't go so under those circumstances you know there is that modification provision of conditions within three thousand five hundred and eighty three each and so the district court does have the discretion in terms of reworking and the issue here before you with respect to special condition number four is whether or not the district court committed plain error in imposing it and whether or not there's anything in the record to support it and the government commits that there is plenty in the record to was relied on than the blue decision last year which was that the judge parker and the example given there in analyzing a very similar provision was that this restriction would apply and spoke to all routine family interactions or thanksgiving dinner intend to go somewhere and there happen to be children there i have to fight off violation that's that's that's the bottom line for that we're asking this individual do you possible to read it if possible to read deliberate contact with any child it is possible reading of the way it would be it that's not something that i would want to risk my freedom on judge and that's the problem that's the problem right now in terms of in terms of risking your freedom so the government has just told us that is the way we should understand it and so if it turns out that as applied it's more restrictive than the government has represented it can be modified but why do we have a conflict right now when what you want contact does not require the mens rea of going there for the purpose of being there a child is no question about that that is the point and deliberate contact the child really being the wall of hiding supervising and not really have contact with adults in normal situations and what we're going to be asking of these individuals after the supervised term is over is after you've been you know i do under a table for ten years now we want to interact again sufficient but no greater than necessary and we believe that there's no record support for that if you think conditions said with the government now says it says which is you can't go to a place primarily used by children  to a place you just use play dolts if you have the purpose to interact with children would that be justifiable to record record there would be we don't believe there's a justification for the type of restriction where it can be interpreted that he can't be around other adults for there happen to be children there that's how i would answer that my project is not as direct for that right yes to which i think we have hurt your arguments we have your briefing we will take the matter under advisement and i thank you very much