we'll hear an argument first this morning in case fifteen fifty two thirty eight nichols versus united states mr hans barr mr chief justice may i please the court so three weeks ago a sex offender who moved to a foreign country was not subject to any federal registration requirement in the united states unless and until he returned to the united states below the tenth circuit nonetheless held that it is a federal crime for a sex offender moves to a foreign country fail to impute to report that move the tenth circuit was wrong for three overarching reasons first sourness tax does not include a requirement on register second sort of statutory history reveals that congress wanted to include a requirement under under certain would have done so just as it did before so long as an act finally requirement on register is unnecessary because all fifty six jurisdictions require sex offenders t correct so what happens in practice is that sort of sets minimum federal standards and those minimum federal standards are supplemented by the state of the dish no more strength or requirements one of those more strict requirements is the obligation on register and yes kansas has that obligation so in your hypothetical justice ginsburg that individual has done register in kansas under state law and when he gets to illinois that's the federal requirement to tell i want to point to to register to update the registration you what sense does it make if you have a federal law that says we're going to add this to these these sanctions when you violate the state law and in the one case if you don't register your triggered the state law says we got an underage there too but if you and register you don't that's not included under the federal law why would why would congress draft a law like that well i think they would have done that because and if you look at the legislative history i think this is somewhat clear what congress was concerned about were missing sex offenders not initial registration but when when the sex offender crossed state lines so so by by requiring registration when you get to the jurisdiction that that was the aim because that's when offenders were going missing now the the departure jurisdiction would be a relationship between very much relationship between the state and its citizens and that that's played out if you think of a state sex offender who could live in kansas and if he were to have a federal requirement on register in kansas that's actually not enforceable under sort of because the travel has to come after or before he can't register so if mr nichols were a state sex offender and he only committed an offense when he leaves kansas and that doesn't and that's a when an individual crosses state lines and that's the minimum requirement and so well but there's no problem to require him to register but all this on there is a problem to require him to unregister well not problem it's just sort of left to the states that he did violate state law could the united states have asked for an extradition based on the state law violation this is a permanent hole or that they just picked the wrong law to seek extradition order while justice example was interstate travel then and i'm saying they asked him to be but you're talking church from where he fled to if the phillip ok mr nichols mr nichols moved under the sort of violation credit they have asked for him to be returned on to the state law violation yet there's actually a provision in sauna i think it's one thousand six hundred seventeen which requires federal marshals federal officials to assist the states in enforcing registration close at a guess i think oh yes so really what we're talking about is that they asked for the extradition under the wrong law i think that's exactly right and mr nichols was also on federal supervised release so there was a the reference to it that hand what would happen if he decides he's and this is just all within the united states no foreign travel he decides that he wants to move to the west coast so he checks out of cans but he's not sure where i want to  drive to washington oregon california takes two weeks well what would the requirement for registration be there right now i think it gets a little confusing with the interstate travel because we don't really address it because there is a jurisdiction there isn't a rival  job of this but i'm not sure that that wasn't unintended because if you think about the the window the three business day window that that actually creates a system where an individual is not on the registry for a certain amount of time if you think of a change of name which you have to report if you have three business days to do that there is going to be up to five days where that registry is inaccurate and that's just the way it is so i think although we might not want to admit it or the reality is that actually creates these gaps by allowing offenders some period of time to register and i think congress did that because it knew the states could supplement so one of these are just minimum standards you have a textual argument that i understand but  one of the arguments you mentioned at the outset was that an examination of the legislative history shows that congress intended to produce the sort of result that was produced here and i wonder if that's really a plausible argument if you're correct then two things happened at least two things happened one kansas retains on its record in accurate in accurate information about the presence of a sex offender which can have a lot of adverse consequences for a lot of people i don't see why congress would have wanted that to remain and do you really think congress was  about the united states exporting pedophiles to the philippines or to other countries do you think that they were not concerned about not only the human rights implications of that but our relations with other countries well well i think if you look at the legislative history there's nothing to indicate that sort two thousand and six had anything to do with international travel and i think the new legislation is important in this regard because whether i don't i don't know that i said intended if i said that i didn't mean it i think that the history of it jurisdictions so i think what i mean by the statutory history is that that's that's an indication why there was no in an registration requirement put in stronger because it existed in all the jurors take off like it's men come back to justice ginsburg's hypothetical of  someone like your client who moves from kansas to illinois what in the language of the statute would prevent that person from going to the registry office in kansas before departing and reporting there that he was moving to illinois and his new address in illinois would be whatever it would be does that not fit under this under the language of the statute or would you agree that it does but i would agree that there's nothing that prevents him from doing that and i would agree that he should do that under state law but well if you if you agreed to that and i don't see why why there's a difference between that situation and the situation where the person leaves kansas and goes to the philippines well but i don't agree that it's safe it's sufficient where a federal requirement to do it before that i think that's the distinction i would why would you not quire and why would it not be sufficient under forty two us c one six nine one three c well because that provision is still going to require and the government i think agrees with this they're still in that requirement is to report in their arrival jurisdiction well it says shall not later than three business days after each change of residence appear in person in at least one jurisdiction involved  pursuant to subsection a and inform the jurisdiction of the change of address so prior to leaving he is within the period of not later of them want them three business days after the change of residence and have that time when he goes to the registry office in kansas he is residing in kansas so he falls within subsection well this is the texas on page eleven a of the blue book i think i think what's brief i think what's important is if you looked directly above subsection c to subsection v i think this is what you're really saying congress did subsection b sets for two subsections the first of which begins with the word before the second of which begins with the phrase not later than three business days after so i think if congress had meant to do something structurally similar in subsection c it would have done it but it did it instead it just did not later than three business days after and i think the change is a trigger and i think that's that's key and it's similar to subsection b two where the trigger is being sentenced and so that event has to happen that occurrence has to happen before you reported it so in subsection c until the change happens you can't really report in satisfy this provision but now under its current law under the twenty fifteen who were prepared twenty thousand people we're talking about a very small subset i assume unless the federal government were to go out and indict a bunch of people who have travelled prior to february for this all other jurisdiction in which the defendants were required to register here they were not well correct and typically there may not be but that that language i think captures the defendant for instance where we come from a lot of people live in kansas and work in missouri that that sends would capture that situation where there's a a a a an employment jurisdiction that's different than a residence jurisdiction in the appointment jurisdiction would notify the residence stiction or vice versa but my question implemented by the states and so each state there's not some federal form for sex offenders to sign there are no federal registration offices there are no federal officials who do these things this is a local thing a lot of it is county sheriffs it would be a state form every state would have a different form so what you're referring to those are quotations summaries of kansas law and not federal law because if you're in kansas you have to read you are required to register  all these requirements and still are would be satisfied by informing the state office is that what i'm saying in practice that's what has to happen there is no federal person you can tell you register with the state people i'm trying to interesting the new legislation as i see it it's getting away from where you reside or anything else it just says if you're going to travel to a foreign place you have to tell the so i think that's absolutely true i think if there whether there was a gap or not whether it was intended or not the bottom line is that it's gone away in there and there's no reason to take any text winter potations sixty nine thirteen defendant and it says it says that he was in prison he was released he registered in missouri but he moved to pennsylvania and it says without updating his missouri information and then this court puts in parentheses as required and without registering pennsylvania and then it goes on to talk about how the failure to register in pennsylvania is a sixteen one thirteen c a fact that's our position and i think this court you said it in reynolds it had nothing to do with the holding but i  think that's that's in this court's mind at least in and i do want to note that the government's reading defining the supplemental jurisdiction is one where the  the on on the registry creates a really weird situation where mr nichols when he lived in the philippines because he still appeared on the kansas registry under sort of he still lives there he still resides there and that's just not right under the statute in the wa defiance resides and it's just not right as a matter of common sense and you don't reside in kansas when you actually live in the philippines and with that there are no further questions thank you thank gannon mr chief justice and may it please the court so in a required petitioner to register and to keep his registration information current this is not an unregistered requirement but a requirement to keep his registration current in the jurisdictions where he was registered by timely giving notice of any change of residence to at least one jurisdiction involved and we disagree with petitioner we think kansas was a jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection a here both because of the meaning of that phrase which is more than just taking down the phrase that appeared in subsection a and also because it's reinforced by section sixteen nine to one b three is that your position that he was required to notify kansas both that he was terminating his residence and that he was moving to the philippines or just that he was terminating his residence the here it's just that he's terminating his residence he could have given information about where he was going but he was not required to but that is that is not what he was being required to do here he was being required to keep his registration information current by saying where he will route where where he is residing and he will he is no longer going to be residing here the phrase i think your answer with clear but i didn't understand th end your view would have been compliant with florida simply to say i am leaving kansas period and that would have complied with this obligation to keep his registration information current with the jurisdiction and  we do think that section sixteen nine one four eight three allows him to report where he resides or will reside and therefore he can report future information and therefore the guidelines promulgated by the attorney general in two thousand and eight said that normally when somebody is moving from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction he should tell kansas i'm leaving kansas and this is where i'm going next so kansas can give the that other jurisdiction warning that the philippines is not a jurisdiction under the statute that's correct and so what we think is key here is that kansas is still a jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection a congress didn't say a jurisdiction described in subsection a its editor is fiction involved pursu subsection right how is that the case since subsection a refers to each jurisdiction where the offender resides is an employee or student when he's in the philippines there is no such jurisdiction covered  soren where he resides is an employee or as a student that's correct mr chief justice but we think that that's not the only thing that is pulled in by the phrase jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection a he is required to register while he's a registered kansas he's required to keep aware how is that where is under a something that says it's the jurisdiction where you used to be required or it's the part that says he has to keep the registration information current and subsection covered jurisdictions where he resides as an employee or as a student well why is that obligation is you know operative cause there's no registration place in the philippines well we don't we disagree that kansas is not a registration it's not a jurisdiction involved but even if it were not to such a jurisdiction subsection c requires him to give notice to at least one jurisdiction and as justice alito has already explained well it is also the case here that he could have complied with that by giving the notice before he left kansas will rise it just doesn't have to comply with it until later than three business days after there's a change that's not so he says al not later than three business days after he changes that's not true it is true that he has to comply with it not later than three business days he doesn't have an option of just not doing it and so if he can't comply with it on business day one or business day two or business day three thereafter then maybe he should have complied with it by informing kansas before he left  have maybe he should have but but he may also have thought when it says at least one jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection a and subsection a he says where he resides that maybe there's no jurisdiction involved under  the it does say where he resides but it also says he has to keep the registration information current there and we think that section sixteen wire in the jurisdictions where he says been registered where he is residing  is current at all the time in which he resides there that is true i certainly take the points but we think that congress is using a more capacious phrase in subsection c when it says jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection a qantas is inescapabl because he has been registered there and we think that this is reinforced by section sixty nine to one with then just reading your sil into subsection a out of the statue no i'm reading it to mean something excuse me mr gannon it tells you exactly what it means to be a jurisdiction involved it means a jurisdiction and pursuant to a particular subsection which focuses only on his current residence and all the time he was a current resident of kansas the registry was accurate i understand that justice our view is that this is not the same as saying a jurisdiction described in subsection a it's a more capacious word to say it's involved pursuant to subsection a we know that kansas is involved here and section sixty nine to one b three makes it clear th kansas continues to be involved because that's the provision that says that as soon as the new change in residence information is conveyed to at least one jurisdiction that jurisdiction has to give it to every jurisdiction or to which the change of residence occurs i had i understand i understand your argument about sixty nine fourteen a three but how many what's the penalty for the maximum penalty for violating this provision i believe it's ten years ago regulating the federal provision to ten years so you think somebody is supposed to look at this and say should i register obviously doesn't want to register on register or whatever it is he says ok it says involved but that's different than described and he says jurisdiction where the offender resides and there's no place to register where i currently resides and then he's supposed to say ah but sixty nine fourteen a three says resides or will reside and six that's an awful lot to ask a layperson to parse at the penalty of ten years for being wrong with their registration violation it clear and certain that have a provision where there has to be a brain interpretation well maybe we should have stopped that as well but we did think that we had a strong federal interest in this particular prosecution for multiple reasons he was a federal sex offender and as the court has already recognized the united states has a special interest in ensuring that fed you and your interpretation let's look at this through word involved and you saying it means ever involved is that right no it means involves apap at the point in time during the three business days where the change in residence has happened and needs to be notified and so i think that you know that word this is a doesn't mean ever involved and it doesn't mean now involved it means involved during the three business days where the it when a person is posed to understand that in fact you're supposed to read that into the silence it means to me a little farfetched would you say no i don't think it's farfetched because i think that it means it's involved it's a jurisdiction involved in the chain it's a jurisdiction it's a jury was involved you know it's involved in the change in residence because you know he's changing from kansas to somewhere else and so kansas is inescapably and i see it in any age in the information and i'm trying to understand it it is a jurisdiction that is involved in a special way it is a curious diction that used to be a residence and it is no longer involved a residence and that creates an involvement even after they're no longer residents you know the more i explain it the less i understand it that may be my fault  perhaps this might as well but i think that it's involved because he is still registered there as a resident and we know that the fundamental purpose of this law in order to have a sex offender registry is to provide an accurate listing of where sex offenders resi are only for purposes but this one is a little tough because as i read it literally at all i don't i don't get an interpretation and you could do the same thing you're supposed to and you seem to be saying that look you said those they're supposed to keep the registration current now baby there is a requirement somewhere that says when you're thinking of leaving before you leave you have to go tell the people before you leave of where you're thinking of going so i then i looked up what you have to have in here and it says the attorney general can have read regulations that would say something like i just said but i take it there are no such regulations and i take it when it s says if you know the kinds of things you have to report i guess you could get something like that out of it but you're not arguing that you know we're arguing that he has an obligation to ensure that the information in the registry is correct that the purpose of the registry is to enable us to have a listing to have the jurisdiction have a listing of where sex offenders reside are employed or are a student and it has failed in that purpose if it inaccurately says he is living in leavenworth kansas when that is the one place that he is not living by sunni has not been living for fifteen years in the philippines where he is employed he now changes his employment and he goes to work in type does he have to tell kansas no why is that i mean kansas was once involved because no because kansas was not a registration where he was listed as being employed if he were moving his job his employer oh i would he's done is he's lived in the philippines for fifteen years and now he's changed his residence to south korea does he have to tell kansas no justice prior to believe that this requirement is about updating the registration information associated with his residence in kansas and we think that kansas remains involved so long as the registry says he is living in leavenworth kansas and saying has not yet given jurist a notification to at least one jurisdiction that's a longer true it seems to me that what you are saying is that each of these offenders is supposed to recognize the underlined purpose of the law which is to have accurate registries and to do everything he can to serve that underlying purpose and we would you know it would be good if everybody did that but the text of the law is something different and if you look at this text of the law there's just no way that a reasonable reader reads that text and says it requires me to provide departure notification when i leave to another country well so you can say well he's supposed to keep it current and that's right he is she should keep it current because we would all like sex registry but the statute provides very specific details about what it means to keep it current and it seems to me he has conformed with every single one of those requirements and we just don't think that's true because kansas was a jurisdiction that he could have been formed w he was still a resident that doesn't even require that you know he did not have and he should have and said and that would have been tough to and but the statutory language but it is subsection see that provides the content for what it means to keep the registration current and it says you have to inform at least one jurisdiction informed zero jurisdictions that's the problem here it's says he has to have informed at least one jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection and subsection a makes clear that the only jurisdictions that they're talking about are the jurisdictions in which he currently either lives works or is a student and that was true the morning before he left kansas and the morning he was going to move out of his apartment and he could have sat morning today is my last day in kansas i'm a resident and everything was current and then when he left kansas he's not subject to this statutory provision anymore he is subject to the parisian that requires him to keep it current he's given a three business day grace period but if he fails to comply with it by the end of the three business days anywhere that's what we think the problem is and so we do think that he would have done it the problem has been effectively i think that the new statute captures this type of conduct effectively incidentally because the new statute actually talks about a much broader category of conduct it talks about intended international travel it doesn't it doesn't talk per se about changes of residence but it does require you to report your took a fact and so we do think that there will not this type of conduct will now be captured into the new statute but we don't think that the new statute indicates that congress did not think this conduct was captured under the old statute because it is directed at a much broader category of conduct i understood if i understood it correctly there is still a category of people under your interpretation today that would not be covered under the new law because you have to file an itinerary right yes ok well ok this person files in one thousand or a saying i'm flying to the philippines and if he takes up residence there and he's still violating the law under your interpretation well that would be true mr chief justice except that the language that we're talking about here is the new subsection it would be new sixteen nine one four eighty seven and it includes not just the itinerary but also the founder has to report the means and purpose of travel and so we're expecting that the purpose of travel of  is i i'm going to visit the philippines and while there he decides i'm going to set up permanent residence here then you would be able to prosecute him under this provision even though the new law doesn't cover well i think purpose is to visit the philippines and while in the philippines he decides to set up residence there well that i think i would have that would raise a separate question and would mean that because his purpose had changed we would we would have to find out whether the attorney general's time and manner implementation of this provision which is also authorized under the new statute requires him to report such changes in purpose after he's already in the philippines and if so and he doesn't say well i thought i was here on vacation but it turns out i'm moving my residence and so that may well turn out also to be a violation because he needs to report the purpose of his travel has changed but my point is just that even though congress has now address intended international travel and is expecting this to be reported in advance as the title of the new statute indicates and therefore we wouldn't have to have this debate about whether this is a jurisdiction in which he is currently residing when he says i intend to fly to the philippines in twenty one days that debate would would be mooted out by the new staff so you you read six hundred ninety one three as saying where the offender resides or resided is an employee or was employee is a student or was a student i don't think that that's the way we're reading the provision mr chief justice we're saying that there are two obligations there one is to register and the other is to keep the registration current and if you allow the registry to have inaccurate information that it when it where you look up your current address and it's not your current address the new violated that obligation and we think that subsection c provides additional explanation as to what it means to keep the information current and it says you know what you don't have to give advance information advance notice that you're going to be changing your residence you can do it up to three business days thereafter but you have to inform at least one jurisdiction and fall and we think that in that situation especially because another provision of the statute makes it cool clear that the jurisdictions that are entitled to the information about the change in residence include those from and to which the change in residence is made they get the information they are involved that and when you're only an obligation on state officials and to say really that obligation applies to me as well that we think the offender is supposed to look to the notices that he received which said he was supposed to provide notification of every change of address i think any reasonable person when told that he has to give notification of his change of address says oh if i decide i'm moving out of the country i don't have to tell everyone anybody that that is actually contrary to a common sense reading of this provision and we know that the notice reinforces the idea that he does have to inform kansas now as petitioner says that's clear as a matter of state law we also think that it's that it's part of the minimum requirements of soren and we don't think it's a question for the court to say well congress expected this to be a state well prosecution and didn't want there to be a federal law prosecution because that would be true of virtually every single violation of section twenty two they might have but this is the language that bothering people and i'm trying to see if there's support for this word involved which i hadn't really thought imagine he leaves kansas he left on monday it's now tuesday so he doesn't reside in kansas anymore he's now over residing there is no not there anymore so is does it mean involved right now no you say it doesn't mean that because if it's involved right now it isn't you mean it was involved two days ago and now you have a general definition of that and you mean it was involved because it was the last jurisdiction in which you actually going to be on the rolls there he will be on the rolls in kansas because they never took him off and now it's twenty years later so you can't and he let's take what you do mean and now i have an idea of it what support is there for that is the support in a regulation is this important some previous case is there support and i'm thinking focusing narrowly on your interpretation of the word involved there is support in the attorney general guidelines to the extent that the attorney general guidelines adopted in two thousand and eight and we're not claiming chevron deference to them but this is been our construction of the statute all along that the attorney general guidelines are reprinted at the end of our brief and they specifically say that he is  in order to keep his registration information current to this is it page twenty two a it says even if he doesn't know where he's going next he is required to keep the registration information current by informing the jurisdiction of he is terminating his residence employment for school attendance in the jurisdiction that's true in the domestic context and then if you if you go on to page twenty four it articulate the same requirement in the context of needing to keep the registration current in jurisdictions where someone resides when you're moving out of the country this this is not an administrative law provision it's a criminal statute the attorney general guidelines can't expand a fair reading of what congress media legal under federal law we're not claiming that the attorney general has expanded the text of the statue mr chief justice i'm just saying that this is the way the department of justice has been construed the statute since two thousand and eight jurisdictions implementing the statute understand this and they've been informing sex offender and i say don't give me all that everyone i just said my and my answer is so what so what if the attorney general's been construing this since you know eight hundred seventy five if you cannot do anything to expand the words the congress used that that's even if you disagree that this is a fair reading of the statute i'm not going to tell you that the guidelines make it a fair reading of the statute i would you're saying is the attorney general thinks that's a fair reading of the statute i'm delighted so i should think it's a fair reading of the stand i'm also telling you that we think you know i'm telling you  think we have good reasons for this construction and justice briar asked if there's anybody who's ever adopted this construction before and i say yes the attorney general publicly did so in two thousand and eight all sorts of implementing jurisdictions were told this is the way the federal government reads the statute and they're supposed to inform sex offenders of this in this instance kansas has informed mr nichols that he has an obligation to provide notice when he is terminating his residence they've gone above and beyond what's on the requires by always demanding that he inform kansas even though soren under our reading would allow him to inform any one jurisdiction involved and we think just a probably should know this but kansas requires him to list any change right yes to un he has to he has to report any change in the residence information yes what what sort of language did they use it that their language does it specifically says he must register any change or terminations of residence within three days to the registering law enforcement agency or agencies where last registered so that's the incident center last registered where it's specific only picks up and says you have to go back to where you last registered we think that goes beyond that's the way in which kansas law goes beyond sora because sorn it does not always require that we think that in a situation like this effectively required that because there's no other place for him to have gone but we also take  that sort of permits him to comply with the requirement to keep his registration current by going to the office in kansas and it's the same form there's no doubt that it's possible for him to report the change in residence there the form says what is your address and it has location start date and location and date and those can be reported in advance or after the fact our position is just that when sort of gets around to saying what it means to keep your registration information current you have to do that in at least one place within three business days and so we think that that means he could do it in kansas even the day after he moved if you disagree with that we still think it also must mean at least as justice alito was explaining that he has to do  to comply with it by doing it while there still is one jurisdiction there is no doubt that kansas was a jurisdiction involved while he was still residing there could i question mr gannon have absolutely no legal significance chalk it up to them and bring many of these prosecutions because i might have thought that when sex offenders leave the country permanently the attitude might be like good luck and good riddance well i take a point justice kagan but remember this is somebody who is not just a federal sex offender he's on federal supervised release the notion that we have somebody on federal supervised release we're supposed to be keeping track of him and making sure that he's they are committing or you know what i'm saying you're if as i understand the requirements that even you say he subject to it's just a requirement that says he's leaving the state it doesn't he's not required to tell you where he's going in the world he could be going to philippians or any other country so it doesn't really help us in terms of you know helping our allies deal with sex offenders i'm just curious why it is that people why d o j makes the decision to bring sex offenders back to this country in such circumstances as i said he was a federal sex offender who was on federal supervised release who appeared to be on the cusp of committing additional federal offenses in the philippines and so we brought him back and we do think that there is a federal interest in this case but section twenty two fifty includes cases where somebody is waiting state law because by definition all of these registration requirements and sore not much of the time are also going to be violations of state law and so in this instance the problem is that the registry was inaccurate it's supposed to i hear me right right that when you say he had the responsibility to keep the registry accurate that's just to say he had the responsibility to tell kansas he was no longer in kansas that even on your view he had no other responsibilities evidence to a the belief that the united states should not be exporting its pedophile problems to other countries yes anderson countries like the philippines where  the petitioner here went are known places that are attractive to sex tourists who go there to abuse young children and has in congress  evidenced concern about this both for the human rights aspects of the problem and also i would think for relations with the government of the philippines absolutely justice alito and it would have been a federal offense for him to have engaged in since actually  supplemental guidelines that the attorney general adopted in two thousand and eleven underscore not as additional information that was required that's not what's at issue in this what's really interesting is that regulation to the states to do this it  doesn't the sex offender that he's obligated to do it it says the states must do this it would say it's a little bit but it's true that the guidelines that were addressed both the guidelines and the supplemental guidelines were addressed to implementing jurisdictions they were articulating the federal government's construction of the statute and so that is required now a sex offender is supposed to understand what evolved means and read a directive to jurisdiction senior regulation and say ah that includes me too well we nurse diction supposed to do this but now i got to do something more well but what the jurisdiction was told is that it has to inform sex offenders that they must do this and that happened here so mr chief justice i don't think i actually reserve time for but also thank you ok i forgot to say that but thank you i would just this prior if i can i'll be brief on the guidelines this is actually a direct quote the according to the part of justice in jurisdiction may require that changes in registration information be reported by registrants on a more stringent basis than the minimum standards for example requiring that changes of residence be reported before the sex offender moves rather than within three business days following the move and it mean that's our position i don't there are other portions in the in the guidelines that direct jurisdictions to do this but that but but what the gov what the guidelines say right there is exact is exactly what we said that it is a more stringent require a few other points on the word current i think if you you look in the in the us there's a provision on in person verifications where there's a requirement for a current photograph that word clearly doesn't mean a future and i think that's important to understand that when you're talking about for current information it's not future information i think justice kagan mentioned that a few times on sixteen twenty one sixteen nine twenty one b three again that's that's language directed toward the jurisdictions that's not a requirement for the offender and that's how the former jurisdiction would be informed of the change and if there are no other questions thank you counsel the case is submitted