means i'm not going to walk in this neighborhood when i see people wearing those kinds of bandana or i'm wearing again i'm wearing a i'm wearing a pin or i'm wearing my hat you say in a particular way and that's precisely the point here you know that's the kind of s good morning me please the court on kurdistan i represent the point of hell united states of america here starting in first with the gaining of paraphernalia displaying in wearing it starting with the court's earlier comment you know this defendant is not getting out for fifteen years through certain practice be sent back on remand i think it is better for the government and we are on plain air reviews here in the defendant did not object to this and so the question is on the fourth kong over a lot of the other judicial proceedings compromise here and here where this defendant is getting out fifteen years from now we have no idea whether in a practical way this is going to apply to him and more over built into digital system under thirty five eighty three is the ability for this defendant to go in and is imposed and suggested by the provision officer in cases in which the defendants have shown a gang affiliation predilections so when you get to the heart of the matter which is whether this particular provision is over bro think however when brought into court and tested because the government does have to prove that it is what he's wearing displaying does connote on a canal that is an objective fact i think it's not overbroad i think it puts the defendant on notice of exactly is any supposed to be any narrowing condition here i don't think it is that the court needs to impose some c enter i think that changes the condition altogether if anything if the court is really troubled by me can know what the government would suggest is that this is sent back on very limited dema us to imply it's the enter requirement that is that the defendant has to know that this is connote ing gang affiliation seems to me that that's me into requirements consistent with the whole reason for being of the condition in the first place they're trying to keep this fellow long time affiliate of gangs away from gangs if he knows he's wearing clothing that connotes membership in gangs that's what the district courts are trying to avoid by studying this condition so why wouldn't we just say entry condition here that the person that has to know he's conneaut ing gang affiliation this defendant so that's an interesting point brought up by the court and i think really the center car is not necessary here when viewed in conjunction with the other conditions regarding field affiliation that the defense has not challenge there's no knowledge required there either your honor with the conditions that bar association with gang members and moreover the condition of bars suggesting if he wondered into an area that he was unfamiliar with and there happen to be gang members there that he would be in violation just by virtue of their you know and i'm not suggesting that your honor and i gets back to the original question as one of practicality and even assuming that there were a probation officer out there who was going to give one reason of all that person is held in check by the district court and moreover by the burdens of proof that the government needs to prove that this person is in is in violation but i think there is sound policy in good reasons court in this case as well and others for these conditions to be here this particular defendant has a long history of a criminal history as well as affiliation with the game at the very expense that he was arrested for unlimited convicted he admitted at his own body carries these admissions are tattooed all about him his blood on his stomach thirty feet in fear on his right arm as well as in gang moniker termite on his left arm so this is a tenant who is association with and wearing a displaying of colors these are the types practicality of preexisting tattoos on him i cannot imagine it would be would find any violation i think or you could go out and get other ones like in the lead in the year just twenty twenty when you finally get south that may be a different thing your honor turning very briefly then i think the alcohol condition which wasn't spoken about for the defense council did raise i think it is reasonably related to the barn alcohol here he had a lengthy and intense history of substance abuse generally as well as with respect to alcohol specifically the instances in which he lied and was not truthful with relation office about his use of alcohol in fact the one time in which he said that he's been abstaining says nine hundred eighty seven the reason for that is that he admitted he was drunk going in a fight with down the neck and head i think that alone defendant when he gets out his teen years from now to apply under thirty five eighty three to have that condition modified with an actual number of tests such by the district court and even then he would have a little bit of leeway and room because even as he stephens court date is now there is at least three mandatory tests that are allowed for him upon his getting out so he even has that much more time in addition to the fourteen years to make that motion in the district court and on this the government which would mean was there any questions about  to get shot and in that case it apparently does cut no affiliation with again and he's i guess responsible for not wearing anything