i've reviewed all of the cases cited by the government claiming that this is waive and i don't see any case that's on all fours i guess first off a number of the cases deal with an appeal of a sentence not of special conditions and so basically the individual got the sentence that was understood  there and then tried to appeal the sentence that was imposed the closest they come is on the santiago case and the rojas case and in those cases  it does involve special conditions it does involve a waiver of the special conditions but what we tried to point out in our brief was that in those agreements and and grow haas makes clear ones where there's anything close to this the waiver including the defendant waives the terms conditions and recommendations it was nothing like that here and significance to what the severity of the condition that is as i understand it you must be saying that the judgment and sentence in this case simply does not include anything other than the carswell portion of the sentence what i'm saying not because i read it that way but because in every other the agreement they have said that the individual is waving that according to its turn conditions and recommendations of the  because in every other situation like that the waiver has all the person kind of given them the heads up to meet with terms conditions and recommendations you're pointing out to them that there are these things beyond just the simple sentence within the plea agreement in this particular plea agreement they it's very truncated and it just says sentence and you know i do think this situation does matter and the person looking at a maximum sentence as part of the plea agreement gives us some insight but the other is look at ask the court to look at the special compas waiver of an appeal to anything related to the judgment which would be the special conditions given the absence of any description in the plea agreement in the waiver of encompassing the special conditions that it couldn't be knowing sentenced according to terms and conditions and recommendations then what follows then you've waived the right to appeal it exact same language is here judgment and sentence in this case right well one way to read what happened here is you just have a narrower precondition which is all that's required is that the court sentence him or her to the agreed upon specific sentence or agreed upon sentencing range but that precondition was in fact complied with then you go to the next part which is just did you waive the appeal of the judgment sounds which is the exact same language as to what you waived that we said was fine in rome us agree that there is some language that they're drawing distinctions where there is  ingenious argument but i think that basically most criminal defense lawyers would understand as i'm sure the case here that the supervise release is a part of that and the be the argument is interesting but i don't see how you can we are with the statute and what we have done pretty clearly in the past well i'm making an effort to square because some of in a number of the cases at least the lawyer in the colloquy had said that i went through these special conditions you know there are instances where it's been clear or at least on the record that the defendant had a real knowledge of the special conditions and i do think that when you start to range into things like fifteen year special conditions where you can't stay outside your house one night without the probate probation departments of approval you can't have contact of justice i agree that i mean look i've got it i'll acknowledge either way because there are no objections i mean there under the plane there are standards or i'm under the  teetered standard of a miscarriage of justice where the courts say that needs to be agreed just cases and it's use sparingly so it might be even with the waiver a little touch of her standard to be honest i'm having some i had some trouble in preparation drawing just how this which standard was it sounded like the one with the waiver was a little worse standard for me to be honest what's the argument as to why there's a miscarriage of justice here that would reduce to just saying any time there's a player there's a miscarriage of justice well i would say on the mish karajan justice is a few different levels one it seems to me individual in any way and the proof of that can be seen the special conditions include things like co defendants where there's no codefendant the big them he calls the judge calls it irrelevant because they think because of the victim it passed yet it's still included in the commissions and so you can see how boilerplate this is an exact location by even a reading of page twenty or twenty seven sentencing and then of the special conditions it shows the court in individually tailored this and to me when you're not dealing with a human being as an individual with the defendant as an individual you are going outside the constitution it is very problematic and that's exactly how these conditions were applied in a boilerplate kind of way that in the valley  in the concurrence is pointed out and it seems to be kind of a chronic situation and in particular district think and i know my time is up but you know looking at the one would expect to use sure that there would be a reason for that is them with some other minor child what i see is that the integrity of judicial proceedings required to looking at it is an individual case and for instance the the victims as you point out here are women or young girls not not nothing of the male you know nothing to do with males and yet he is barred from any contact with his own children and one of those children is male meaning if you if there's an individualized look you don't have to draw such a such a objections in my case and so the standard review was more difficult in santiago he had made an objection to the fact that he could not visit his minor children and the court upheld that restriction bill valli came out after a brief this matter and to be honest and maybe this is a failing on my part i didn't read that bill valley's change in preparation for this to be honest i did a lot of research in my office over the last thirty six hours to try and figure out how to deal with it it didn't seem to be any clearer way that i was supposed to deal with it but as the record comes this week there's nothing in the record that shows that he has a child is there there is or there is yes because in the record that he has two minor child is nine children in the p s r is two minor children five and nine i believe their sexes are made clear in the record what i was going to ask regarding bill valley because i haven't briefed the government hasn't had a chance to brief it on the particular issue children was if you would consider allowing us what you just file a twenty eight j letter about the relevance of the valley as you see it to this and we can decide whether to accept it or not you will give it within seven days ok attorneys that have dealt with this type of case before they conditions that were imposed are fairly standard conditions in the district of puerto rico they were aware of these types of conditions if they had wished to carve out any exceptions for these aware that it was five to five years to life in addition the p s r stated the terms of supervised release he posed no objection to the p s r then again the sentencing memorandum there was no objection to the terms of supervis conditions in in it well ok so it starts on page twenty four of the p s r it says starts out with how we should cooperate with child support you should not participate in activity with children under the age of eighteen he shall not reside near children the age of eighteen just goes on for three pages starting at age twenty four yeah it's pretty much word for word i haven't done a complete compare write with a two one word but just the point about the took the child because if i understand it correctly he your business is that he's consented for all time to having a publication of support from having contact with his own children r but what appears counsel is telling me is that seven of those children are now adults apparently only two are still minors one of them one would be eighteen when he's released and that is a male the other one is would be fifteen and that does concern me because that's his preferred age group and gender is fifteen year old female you know so so that would continue to concern me i know that's a record in terms of the age of the children  your honour's is if you have no further questions i'll move on to the various conditions we believe that the restriction on the first three restriction that is i know of is the restriction on his internet usage i'm sorry let me let me go to the limitations on profession i believe that it's evident from the record why these limitations are placed the judge terms of supervised release do not say that he is not possible prejudice to the government and the extent to which the defendant can be fairly said to have least in the result i would say you know as a first point there is no air as a second point the impact on the defendant i think is minimal counts as a result of him entering into the plea and i think that these terms are warranted and they're reasonable under the circumstances of this case i don't know as the prosecuting attorney would be willing to accept a plea at this point if he is not consenting to these terms  there was an error which was plain which affected this interim rights of the defendant such that the confidence in the result is undermined here it's you