asa cutes me for not registering i will raise my constitutional objection to this because because i am and intend to remain within one state and never to leave it in trust state travel but he does not whatever else and and because he agrees that that that that if there's two bases the intrastate an interstate if he can be if he can be prosecuted for the interstate travel it's enough while he's on active federal supervisor lease and they're keeping tabs on him that he be required to register during that period in the event that he travels interstate that's your argument seems to me that he has an argument in answer to your position that even if even if he would be in violation when he travels in interstate commerce if you changes his mind and he leaves the state he would still have the option to register just before doing it new york state for intrastate travel in any event i would also note under the reasoning of kempo when the supreme court decided this same question for a military offender with a prior conviction who wasn't even on active supervised release they talked about that this power was necessary to ensure the public safety through systems of parole and supervised release the federal government has long kept track of former federal prisoners through probation parole and supervised release in part to prevent further crimes he has what's he added interest context well of the defense pressing issue not the government i would note but in pressing the issue on on behalf of the government why that box needs to be checked it should be checked for notice to mr hyneman notice that he's going to be subject to sort of even if it whether it's one office two offices doesn't matter i'm trying to get the logic of your art i agree your honor the fact that yes registered in the state is relevant to your argument that we get to the but then the commerce clause should go that far because it's it's necessary as part of it are we talking about supervised releases or we're going to talk about after he's done with supervised release during the period when he's so so during the period he's supervised release your honor we don't know if he's going to travel or not because we can't predict who's going to travel and who doesn't isn't going to travel requiring everyone to try to register so that we can track them while they're being tracked anyway it seems amongst all of us that seems to be at the heart of the argument we need him to register because if he travels somehow i don't personally know how but somehow because he's registered under sort of we will know that he is travelling to state and right in that right it is exactly right you know because we'll know when people register they actually go and do checks to see if the people who are registered are where they're supposed to be registered  t the reason to do it is it is because you cannot properly and force in terms of interstate travel because you won't know he's done it and that's what sort of i for yes there's there's regular to exactly there's regular checks they go and check and they're also you have to renew your sorn a periodic place so when someone suddenly doesn't renew we know that they've gone and we can start to look for them in that circumstance that's different from if you travel from from queens to proclaim on saturday any answer if it's just a trip for the day to do something there's no difference was more and you wouldn't be subject to prosecution of is the person moves so you're living in queens when you're released but then you move to new jersey pennsylvania or whatever and you want people registered so that the as the supreme court made in canada that for someone on active federal supervised release the federal government has a very active interest and that the it would extend to intrust state but i think whether it's constitutional i statutory authority there under for federal supervise really see we can do we actually require them to tell the probation office where they're living at all times even if and they have to get supervision the court is going to always know where you live through the probation department but that's not what this is this is a registry that average citizens can access correct to some address the information you've given probation which is is confidential right agreed your honor yes so the court's authority while it's got you on supervision and is very specific you is different from what you're asking here so why should why should we was yours which is different from what supervisory congresses authority comes from the necessary here is whether on his judgment judge wexler will not even if it's mandatory direction has no discretion about it but whether it's proper constitutional to require someone who's on active federal supervised release during that the defendant was clearly on notice if i understand correctly from the plea agreement and other discussions he was clearly on notice that the statute requires him to register under soreness as a consequence of his conviction so if that's true did rule thirty five provide him with an opportunity after the judge he certainly had the opportunity before that at the time of his sentence but did the did the did he have an opportunity under rule thirty five or some other provision of procedure to raise this after the judge had mentioned it in an ambiguous way in the in the judgment he had if he had the opportunity did he have an obligation to raise it in the district court rather than raising it for the first time in the court of appeals he it's a mandatory condition of supervised release he could have and and should of brought it up immediately to the district court to to correct that or raised it should he not at the at the sentence because there's no are you have to register it saw it and he argued at sentencing one of the reasons you should give me a non guideline a below guideline sentence is because of this burden that i have to register and the words that he used in the district  all so he or he argued that this unalterable duty to register is one of the reasons you should give me a lower sentence because it's mandatory it's right in the same line as as commit no federal state or local offenses in the same list it's number seven is that a number one the judge doesn't you know it's mandatory because it's mandatory because he was on notice and because he's arguing it clearly not only is the district court not on notice that there's some issue here but it's the district court he's asserting that this is mandatory and i'm going to follow it and you should give me a lower sentence as a result yes and i just as he what we should do what you think we should do with respect to the part of the written judgment since he showed comply with a box had been properly checked it's the perfect listen to the for federal purposes but for state purposes he has a state duty to register as well if he doesn't do it he's committing a state crime and we already have it don't commit any further crimes statement is state or federal offense i don't think you need that sentence and if it's there it should be it should be more clear that you have to file for failure state obligations to the extent that you have state obligations so in the future if a judge  writes a judgment and fails to check the box are you going to make a post judgment it's happened already since this brief your honor and in front of judge webster i called it to the court's attention and he's checking the box at this point so it's already come up as soon as events father brief and i was learned of the issue i started looking for it so i apologize to the under roof thirty five thirty five motion that you you addressed to the judge oh interesting i hadn't considered that  or but that that is an option as well i hadn't considered that tom thank you thank you just a couple of points if unless there's some specific questions there's a lot of issues that's been raised here as to the waiver i don't think it's for your honor to move to forfeiture when you asked me some questions before i think that's a fair way to at least look at it i think waiver is not appropriate here he did point out that he would be required to register although he is required to register under state law and perhaps that in the context of papers and filings that know you know i would understand your argument that you were thinking of the state requirement but that's not what the record permits you to argue here but even so your honor may be the better point is that he didn't get what he asked for and so to say well ok you that what he really wanted was to achieve no jail time and as part of that he pointed out some other factors but you're on whether you got off on it or not there's case law that says that there can be waiver when you make an argument like this and you don't get what you want the question is whether you raise the issue to the district court at a time when it would have been appropriate to do so and instead of saying you know you can't impose these obligations  i appreciate that your honor i do think that at the end of the day the judge should have made that oral pronouncement if he was intending to it was going to is required by the if the record if the record  shows a clear shows an awareness of and your part fact that soren and requires registration and you take the position that that is unconstitutional for someone who intends to remain a resident of a single state and not to change his residence why isn't it your obligation to raise it in the district court whether it's whether it's at the sentencing procedure or under rule thirty five i mean i  agree with you that what the judge wrote i didn't explicitly referenced sort of but you knew that soreness requires this so why wasn't it your obligation to raise it in the district court at some point we contend this is unconstitutional we contend it's beyond the powers of congress to require it what with this business of raising something for the first time in the court of appeals that's not the way it's supposed to work i agree your honor that it should have been raised and litigated and presented clearly and why is that not end of inquiry because in fact it wasn't imposed below and it certainly it was imposed below it was imposed below as a matter of law and you knew that it was by virtue of the sentence the law or required that you register so does not impose it as a condition of supervised release appeal when you didn't know it in the just but i think what we're saying is to the extent that it is a part of the judgment we are challenging that if it's not and we go back catchment as a condition of supervised release one can you yeah yeah so you think it's imposed well i think it's unclear whether it has been imposed in the recent ask the district court for clarification but if that well if that's the case rather than i do think we're in the position of a forfeiture argument with a more relaxed playing area standard or that when it goes back to judge when we do this the right way that i just t the way you should have done it as i understand the colloquy is you should have said judge we contend that soreness apply to our client is unconstitutional but those