thank you and i apologize for being a few minutes late i have a new born at home and things are a little crazy getting out of the house as morning the issues are similar to do with a the issues here are similar to the prior case and i would like to  made sounds it sounds somewhat benign on its face this is disclosed all you have to do is tell the probation office about the computers you want to use but in practice is a significant restriction because in the real world people constantly encounter computers and if they have if they need to disclose to their probation officer the computer before they can use it they are effectively precluded from using many computers that cell phone at a restaurant he was at a coffee shop and a friend handed him her cell phone he didn't even manipulated in any way he just looked at a website on this phone his probation officer the surveilling him said gotcha and  sustained that revocation based on that fact pattern so the fact that he touched a friend cell phone and looked at a website was enough to revoke and and that's what happens he happened to be a child pornography if i'm there but you have one case in the just somebody else's device and if you know you don't use somebody else's device in a casual basis and you can sort of understand if you know you can't use your own device but if you want to look at child porn you go look at somebody  else's maybe that's the reason for giving some kind of notice when you're on i agree that condition might make sense in a case involving a child pornography conviction the question is whether imposing that sort of burden on someone who sent a few e mails in the course of a led to a loss of something like nine million dollars it was a pretty calculated scheme that required at some level the use of modern communications i would i would dispute that the e mails my client corporation corporations use computers there's no way this corporation can run without computers but there's no significant usage of a computer by my client in this case and if you want to go to war there's no record evidence that my client was the person who used a computer to effect the wire transfer someone someone made wire transfers in that corporation and the government cites a number of of computer uses that it asserts on page ten of its brief that my client carried out it says he created fake invoices that he created corporate logos it's as he wired monies it says he falsified accounting records that he transmitted falsified documents but there is no record evidence that my client was the one who did those things someone in the company did it and companies use computers but i would encourage this court to ask the government where in their record it says that my client was the one who used the computer to do these things because i wasn't a be yours  way that the court found plan our best plan or you know it's plainly wrong to say that sending a few emails makes it reasonably necessary to read everything you do on the internet for five years to not let you use a computer at a library for five years to not let you touch your friend cellphone for five years is plainly wrong and what it comes down to is that the evidence of computer usage in this case is so limited it's so sparse that  that he doesn't have to touch the computer doesn't mean he's not the person that actually is effectively using the computer to accomplish the conspiracy but it does mean that none of these conditions would help in any way to stop  he's going to be the number two person in a large corporation with lots of employees to carry out his bidding which i think is another reason why it's not necessarily reasonably necessary to stop him for five years from from going on facebook reading everything he does if he's going to have to do it himself the seems to be a better way to find out what he's doing than the fact he's not likely to have a mordant to give directions to you on it if if sending you the sum total of the evidence in this record about my client's computer is my client specifically is that he sent to e mails he sent an e mail saying i want to get e mail addresses for this and i authorize those costs and then he apparently had some computers which had legal  every email he sends every personals ad he answers every political donations he make is monitored by a probation officer then there really are no limits on these kinds of conditions because the internet is that completely pervasive part of modern life is ubiquitous people use it for literally every aspect of their life as a supreme court emphasized recently in riley and it's there it's going to be the rare crime that has no minimal internet usage where no emails are sent  no text messages are sent no computer is involved in any way this court would never authorize for any crime to let you read all of the defendant's mail correspondence let you listen in on all of his phone overall conspiracy and how it how this fraud was i don't think that's relevant to whether it's reasonably necessary to stop my client from using a library computer in the future so that condition makes sense for a child pornography offender condition even if it's not objected to it's as if there's a factual finding requirement in the district court doesn't make a factual record finding that's plain air so thank you morning of may please the court john alex from on on behalf of the united states the district court did not plainly err by imposing computer related conditions of supervised release those conditions are reasonably related to the defendant's offense conduct they will not amount to a greater probation of liberty than recently necessary to effectuate the purpose and the court's permission i'd like to begin by reviewing what some of the record evidence is concerning computer use and internet use because i do disagree with my opponent's characterization of the evidence showing of credit that have been extended to defend young's employer by making false representation is about the company's counter civa both on the side that is invent points and when they did this was by circulating money through about twenty different shell companies they had created to make it appear that eastern tools simpler was both buying inventory from the manufacturers and then selling it to retailers well the use of computers and the internet was important to the various stages of this scheme for example the fraudulent scheme relied on fake digital invoices and the court can see examples of those in invoices and pages eighty nine hundred ninety eight of the excerpts of records and a couple of those fake computer generated employees is actually have the name louis young which is found young's alias on those invoices so i think it's a fair inference that he was aware that these computer generated invoices were being created you also have the creation of computer generated logos for the shell compan and the court can see this is a different e mail and the one my opponent referred to but somebody actually e mails defendant young about six different computer generated logos that had been created for these shell companies that's up pages y two six seen then of course you have the direction to open up email accounts for the shell companies and this isn't just a question of going for example registering for a g mail address or yahoo email address all those i think that alone would be significant in concert using the internet what you have here is actually registering internet domain sites paying domain maintenance fees and there's an email exchange which is of course pleasantly with where defendant young directs someone to carry out that work and that that think that justifies the conditions that were imposed in this case i want to take advantage of the last argument i see i guess you're here from washington so welcome we've learned i think through the other case that the central district probation office articulation at least of the computer monitoring program has changed somewhat in the wake of our courts crimes on indian  let me just put to you whether the representation made by the government in the garrett case out of the central district is consistent with your understanding of that condition in this case and in particular whether the computer monitoring program referred to an condition i think it's ten is focused on online usage and doesn't extend to offline usage word program or something like that that is correct or out of the government does read the condition in the same way that my counterpart didn't in the first case consistent with consulting the language of the monitoring conditions cases almost identical to the language this court construed so we do read it the same way and i believe we indicated that i think it's on the last page of our brief that we do read it in that light and want to focus is well on the concern raised by your colleague with regard to what the what i'll call the notification condition is which is believe it's condition eight  at what point is defendant required to give notice to the probation office of a given  probation officer saying i'm on this device is that a violation technically speaking if i think it could be a whether or not the probation officer would sort of you know if you were just using that computer to email the probation officer   mr young is going to use this device and then mr young sits down and uses that if you get somebody else to type that first message you technically would satisfy the conditions somebody else sent that is true but it's not it's not  i believe that mr young would have other ways to communicate with his probation officer so there would be another way and barring the example of using a friend just an e mail but he could because as long as he's not innocent that's true i mean technically speaking if you read this language it could be a violation but you know if mr young had already disclosed other computers and related devices that he's using he could send an e mail from that device to his probation officer just say i'm going to be using the computer at the library and so the conditions in this case are just very different from the ones in sales and bar sue me in case there's a lot upon my opponent because they do not have that pre approval requirement it's just a notification requirement let's this court to use to express yourself politically on the tool you use to up pursue intimate aspects of your life you have zero privacy in any of that because as a corporate executive you sent a couple you mails during the course of a crime which is going to be true of