good morning your honor sir christopher ranking on behalf of the talent column bosley and before i start your honors i'd like to point out on fortunately the office omitted that i believe in the table of contents the se to i think that mr bosler his position is that while unfortunately we can't change the underlying record i think it's important that this court recognize that there was a problem counsel stated the problem on the record that he had an issue with the fine narrow issue of how overbroad the commission is supervised release was in terms of computer usage and i think it's incumbent upon this court to err on the side of modified we're not asking for a different order at this time but i just wanted to just generally express concern in this area super though he said he's generally expressed concern even go into the probation office to get a are today with computers there are appropriate and reasonable ways in which probation could easily restrict online access to i s p could easily restrict the websites he visits i think if you take his  take his ability to function in society because we're so dependent upon computers i think that's a problem towards rehabilitation i think it's important beyond this specific case that the court of dress this issue because this is a standard term rely on computers on a day to day basis the younger generation i think we need to focus on the fact that mr boss me is going to be eliminated from part trying to interject himself and participate in society because computers are important no clear objection i think the plain view erin this case is that it's on a reasonably broad because you can use certain things as a cell phone and a t m you could possibly be in violation of the terms and conditions of release because all of those things have online again i'm going to conclude i think it's important that this court at least address this issue because it's so common i think it means there are there are more ways to restrict it in a reasonable way and narrow narrow or term a condition of rel condition because the defense counsel said we are not asking for a different order what else was the court to do defense counsel then expressed concern about the condition and as this court is appropriately recognized even the defense of knowledge that the defendant had an appropriate remedy he could approach is preacher his probation officer supervised release officer after release and if need be approached for a modification of the conditions which one must be disagree with my colleague happens every day and it's quite commonly allowed assuming the appropriate basis is provided to the don't know how we're going to write an opinion based on your knowledge or his knowledge of what happens every day of course not your honor i think the issue as it's  it's the closest i've been able to find them the way this is the way this term is it's a complete mess and so my question is have we passed on a complete ban the use of the computer but not about the other circuits i'm aware of ban does not come pretty close to plano well i guess if i could answer the court's questions in two ways and while this might appear to be a easy way out this is not the case to decide that issue given th in this case therefore the court is confronted with the defendant was a prior conviction for sexually exploiting children he has a current conviction for possessing material that sexually exploited children which in of itself is exploitation of children therefore the court had it was of me that is not the holding the district court made no reasoning in the district court and in the other cases they said that it has to go to the probation officer who can make the decision that you don't get to use it but that a complete land planning a second circuit when even further and said you couldn't even do it with a line the probation department permission because there's other ways of tracking it what i'm suggesting to you is that the complete ban seems to be out of the swing of every case it's been decided outside this circuit and we haven't decided it yet so my question to you it doesn't come pretty close to playing there it may come close to play  so the court is not saying you can't even modify the way to the court say that the attorney said we're going to go back to court and so you can go back that would have been there would not have been a ban then you want i want to leave the court you're the only other issue that came up before the court was the emmeline issue and i'm not that strong a swimmer so i would agree the matter could be or should be remanded to the district court for reconsideration as to whether or not the court would impose