myself so i'll try to do as little that is which i swore i didn't need so hopefully to go to fact and i'm going to begin a little differently here post thompson there was a rush by district courts to get a handle on supervised release conditions and usually the southern district took the step which i think is unparalleled in any district court across the country of rebranding standard conditions that were in the guidelines discretionary conditions that are in the statute and calling them administrative conditions that are a new class of conditions i never heard of before and said that they were requirements in all cases where their supervision or the government explained it said so in its brief this is from thompson but page three seventy eight of thomson does not have this this is something that was created by the judges in the southern district of illinois and it's been unfair to the defendants in these cases who labor under the conception that these conditions are requirement that they're essential to all cases of supervision we know that that's not the case you can get by with just mandatory conditions of supervision when the judges take it upon themselves to impose discretionary conditions they have to do so within the limits of the statute the statute does not have nine and ministry of conditions that are always required so if the judges are laboring under the misconception that these are requirements that effects due process there was in them and every case what lead you to think that the district judge believed that these were legally required paragraph one thirty four of the p s are said that there are i'm asking what makes you think  the best evidence that we have judge easterbrook is what's in the p s are and what the judge do with the judge made corrections to other statements in the p s are mind you did not correct paragraph one thirty four give any indication that he thought these were other than requiring normally judges correct the pre sentence report only if somebody objects but we agree that nobody objected here no he's to aspire to quote that other provisions in the p s are your judge so that's maybe a country example of the normal practice but he could have done it with something else that he thought was incorrect and that leads me to believe that he thought this was correct the end of course not under the statute thirty five thirty three d and thirty five sixty three be so everything of record suggests that the judge by adopting the p set the requirements by having the meeting that they had post thompson that cited in the twenty eight j letter that we filed that refers to these things again as requirements judge easterbrook i think that all suggests very strongly that judge reagan indeed thought these were requirements but he did notify counsel of the outset they could request any additional discussion regarding sensing any gave plenty of opportunity for discussion and then when there wasn't any was discussion at that point judge was tailored to the length of the sentence really which brings me to another point because i mean nobody recognized this they should have it's an incorrect statement of the law that started with the probation office continued through the adoption of the p s r nobody caught it it's a miss like we've had in united states versus jenkins for criminal history and i believe your honor ought to that decision where criminal history has brought in and we know that it affects the guideline range the sentence is incorrect you've got a remedy under plein air review it would be a similar thing here with conditions supervised release which of course can lead to additional imprisonment through revocation proceeding but more particularly judge if i may move because i think we believe with belabor the point about supervised release conditions i would like to talk about the other factors that the judge did not address so at the beginning of the sentencing hearing the government said to the judge you should take into account when in position him posing sentence the mitigating factor of him foregoing the carpenter issue that's never count for major on the government says well the judge knew about it he mentioned beginning that's not enough you have to account for through the imposition of the sentence and that didn't happen same thing with the military service this was something that was mentioned  included in the sentencing memorandum and that the judge never accounted for it we don't or porter vs mccollum that you can undo a death penalty sentence if they unfairly discount military service when imposing sentence this is a flat out minutes this was never count but this isn't exactly like the situation morris is more morris at the end of morris you talk about this in your briefs and i know you know morris as well as you know the law in this area morris is a situation where the district court just says summarily anything further you know question mark right so you know judge reagan asked you know do you want to be further amplification of the thirty five fifty three factors why isn't that sufficient at that point you know to put it on defense counsel to say yes absolutely we do judge you know i haven't heard you you know i'm going with that sure that's a very fair question to scott and i think that the natural response to anybody was to ask the questions of address these thirty five fifty three factors and said what i' them do you need further amplification of these things that doesn't clue a defense attorney and about things that you've missed or you supposed to shore up the record for the district court and say judge you did not address these other mitigating factors and i'd like to do so now we're going to do is appeal proof the decision for the you're supposed to give an honest answer so that errors can be avoided my rather than as one lawyer famously said repeatedly in the watergate trial i put my pocket for appellate review nobody did that we're supposed to prevent errors nobody did that here because there was not an adequate garcia suit or inquiry judge so they had asked that question i think that we would be in a different position but that's not the question that was  say something different from morris and different for garcia saguaro if you ask me have you addressed all my principal mitigating arguments and i say yes that doesn't say what about the arguments that i failed to address as all of hairsplitting that's going on in our law here i and i i understand that right but when you look at like donnelly right donnelly is not a situation where the judges said anything further question mark donnelly's men where they said you know what anybody like any further elaboration that is awfully close so  ch sensing factor and and say you have a pain of what about this judge or at this rate we're not nobody is trying to sandbag the judge here i'm saying that in the moment in the discourse that is happening in the district court the question is asked i don't trust these factors that you've talked about now it wasn't have i failed to address and it's other factors that's the problem happened here so we don't have carpenter the carpenter issue just the government said was mitigating and should be addressed we don't have his age his have the cork my name is derek wiseman nightwatchman again yes your honor and i'm still here today behalf united states of america mr thorne's arguments in this appeal fails for the very same reasons that frankie brown's arguments failed during the discussion articulated in that oral argument earlier today unless this court has any further questions on these issues we will look to stand on our briefs your honors and we respectfully request that this court affirm the sentence imposed  d issues on appeal but if we don't follow what those mechanisms are the district court judge may can't be rescued and so the government's trying to avail itself of an in apt analysis here by relying on garcia sugiura when again we have a appeal the way that the government's using it and the way that they're asking to affirm here we're asking that the additional the issues that were not discussed that should have been discussed that recognize valid mitigating arguments in the case law we've cited the adequately address if you just kind of you know if they feel that that time they should have been discussed and should have been an issue you didn't raise them well might the trial counsel didn't say anything further because he didn't know that he was supposed to say anything other than the fact is the judge did dress which he didn't need additional amplification and that was