situated were asking this court to reverse the district court i'm going to present just two issues for him for says the district court in erred when it did not find a due process interest in the risk assessment a risk levels rather as to dangerousness and the district court erred when it did not find the sex offender registry reporting notification is supervision to be sure it is s to due process issue st risk levels are not conditions  but they are indicators of predictors that must require and individualized assessment in a hearing the district court did rely on  of the livingston this court has stated when an individual is convicted of a sex offense no further process is done before imposing sex offender conditions however conditions of those things the registrar must perform or is prohibited from performing the risk levels are not conditions again their badges not unlike sex offender  however the sex offender is based on convictions convictions of based on past often says that resulted in a conviction they are retrospective risk assessments are crossed but they are based on current and future behaviors characteristics likelihood of danger  risk assessment review committee assembles they have the task of weighing over eighty five thousand dollars registrant they look at their ears factors some of which could include the amount of information that they're receiving the risk of error now needs with regard to are they getting this information correct in fact we do have registrars some may have low risk level john doe one has a sex assault with a model john doe sixty four has an aggravated sexual assault with a low risk level and just the conviction there's some program that looks at a host of factors so there's sort of this disconnect between how the district court viewed the case and i think how it was pled and what we actually now know is is the case and how do we deal with  the one assumption is that the pleading was mis played in that statement when it references the classification the risk levels are based on convictions however if the misnomer is around that because the code of the  article sixty two point zero seven describes what the tasks of the committee are and at the time it does include convictions but it's not clear on what else is used we had experts to even try and delve into that and there's just as misnomer an understanding of what is a look at but the issue here for us is that the risk levels themselves are their own badge of honor what does honor if you will and that  they require their own level of review and it's a label that there was a reference to connecticut department of public safety versus doe they did not even reference due process issue in levels of dangerousness so much so in the new york based on the direction of that court new york instituted a notification process that goes from wh high moderate low to no is assessed you could have assessed every two years because of the prospect of reading at the end of the day just looking at the conviction and saying you're just going to be dangerous for the rest of your life process interest and with that seems to be a week and that's that's the case record says look you you've got your due process that led to the conviction but i mean seems to me you it's actually a better case for you if there's all these other factors that you decide whether or not you are you going to be entered to enter into the people system or if it was going to go on to probation but there's no evaluation but that stigma alone by itself is something that what would process do if it is just based on the conviction let's say or if you're convicted of x or france we're going to treat you as a high level sex offender and that's that's what this is what crossed what procedure would draft would there be a mode the procedure do if so to be rehabilitated so if you are in a position where you no longer a danger then there is an interest to have that heard before the court have it whether it's an examiner or some type of expert that  and thirty years from now there should be a process that says i'm no longer that person who is in danger of re offending or hurting does that the public in easy manner so i believe that having the distinction between sex offender the label and risk assessment gives an opportunity for a person to to to not have to worry that same stigma that same shame of with regard to how they're perceived going forward yes we can't deny that if they have their current convention it happens but it does not necessarily mean that they are for ever going to be perceived as a danger that information is subject to open records request if it's a high designation neighbors are sent disclosures and notifications with regard to that in it could be something that was misinformed neighbors deny getting the information if you are low risk so there is an interest separate and apart from just being what you were in the  factors all refer to them and when and you're looking at the the traditional aims of punishment again using mace of the livingston the court held that that the registry was  itself in fact a stigmatizing that is that same stigma that the smith the dell court held when it did not find when it held that the sti that that resulted from the the alaska megan's law was really from the dissemination of the records the criminal conviction and this court in recent years have said no separate apart from the conviction  leave they are subject to restraints also with regard to the strength of the issue of the prosecutions for non con compliance it is simply a disability for if they were not a part of  three the court dispense of this justice with regard to whether or not to give court order supervision of chords probation based on the public's interest so weighing interest in that regard still doesn't negate that the probation lines the factional lines applied to their legal the legal theories and legal challenges as applied as well as facial challenges again in point seventy four through relied on the this court's unpublished opinions and at best we believe that those unpublished opinions of this court would be persuasive authority and if that's the may please the court grants craft for the appleby's the types of challenges that the deniers are surveying against the texas sex offender registration program has been repeatedly rejected by this court district courts in texas state courts there's nothing that they had they had pleaded that the risk level was based solely on the sense of conviction that's not correct but i think the district court was also relying on the fact that in response to our contrary to our case law regarding conditions of syncing other words a judge can after you've been released from custody at the site automatically your could subject all the supervision requirements for the rest of your life we wouldn't allow that to happen without a hearing but if you can you're supposed to know what what your sin a sin is what the conditions of your release are at the time of your conviction unless or some other hearing i he that's right and so so in response they did not argue that this risk level somehow was outside of that maze of jennings rule but that and so have they waived any something other than the offense of conviction and we did not that may resolve this case mean with waiver but it does seem then it sort of so then the issues really still out there though well that if someone who files a complaint says now i understand how the full risk risk assessment works if the argument if you if you bypass the waiver point and accept their argument that this is not based on solely on the office of conviction but also on prior conviction records our position is that the because the information is still being pulled from prior can the only place is this book where you go through you say was the victim of a had strangers and male victims and all this kind of stuff that's all based on sort of the texas equivalent of a p s r that's right it's there and the argument that's been made is that all this information is taken from their prior records and so our position is that we do said  john doe one assaulted  chris roe so we don't know from the name we have not that you can tell from the name what gender someone is but there's no indication at all by the name so we don't know if it was a male victim then you can't assess the male victim point or whatever that's right  but even even if i'll move on with the assessment is a lot like what happens but the bureau of prisons does i mean some one sentence in federal court but you don't know if they're going to high security or minimum security that's not in the judge  of prisons runs an assessment risk based on all the different information and determines what level of imprisonment but it's very much like an actuarial assessment that ensure performs so what happens is you look at how old is the person when they're released you know what was that was what was the nature of the offense had they been convicted of any other non sexual violent offenses was the victim  child in those arrests there's a lot of this stuff about i don't know i can fewer adoptive than your birth parents could beast considered strangers and things i mean it just seems very detailed in a way that i mean is that in the record i guess you're saying it has to be in the record to get the point it's not in the record judge hands the statute does not prescribe exactly which risk assessment too i don't you know you're using invalid criteria this was not part of my judgment of conviction on a sentence when does the defendant have an opportunity to object to this that the defendant does not have an opportunity to  object to the facts and the application of those facts in that risk assessment and but that the reason that was not addressed is that was not part of their complaint they were attacking this  particular assessment they just said it's based solely on the offensive conviction we now know that is not true you know i'm asking the question sending i have played it correctly why is it this is a real problem so it's it's even if this is the reliance on these facts in this assessment takes it out of maze it's still not a problem in this lawsuit because they haven't a way just a plausible underlying deprivation of interests that could support their procedural due process claim that they pleaded this the risk if we're talking about the risk levels and someone is claiming that the risk levels there are required to be accorded some due process the problem is the risk levels don't work a the necessary deprivation to bring a procedural due process clause it can go from which from register for one year to register for a law is that right but that's a different question chief judge owen so that the and i think there's been some confusion about what these r levels are for as far as the links of your registration requirement that is based solely on the offensive conviction that would be squarely within the maze of jennings rule that have already received all the processing in the proceedings that led to the conviction on which the duration is based as for the risk levels the problem is there's not an underlying stigma or a plus at least as they've pleaded here the stigma under this court's precedent is that it has to be a concrete factual misrepresentation of wrongdoing by the plate is and my friend in opposition just said that's not what this is these are predictors these are prognostications of respect and i just want to and i didn't quite get the answer to my question which is so i'm looking at your ninety nine and i have you all been provided it's something we can take to dish will notice of it's out there in the public sphere and it has this thing about it's possible for someone who the offender had met briefly to become a stranger again if the offender doesn't met the victim but forgot the victim then they would be a stranger ok we're is this in the documentation of the crime this stuff about getting in becoming in these really detail is what i'm saying it's not just let's look at the crime and was a domestic violence and interestingly enough it gets fewer points than if it's a stranger violence this says this long story about meeting and forgetting them and meeting them again how would you find that out if you're the guy applying this you're saying at the desk applying this to john doe one how would you find out if this was somebody they'd met before but forgot if it's not in the records from the prior conviction there were not be a basis to find that out so in those situations where you can't tell was chris roe a man or woman was chris roe a stranger or a family member then is the the tie goes to the defendant i don't know the answer that question judge means i can find out and so i mean other words they wouldn't get the extra point if you can't in the record show that this was in fact a stranger or this was in fact eman or whatever i can't say for certain how that works if if when someone is app instrument the information is not available this is just not a very good case to assess all this because we really don't have a lot of information but we well we are at the twelve these stage and so this i mean this this result what they plan doesn't tell i mean we were unaware of this without our own judicial notice if you will and so that argues for waiver i get that but then that as as has been mentioned is somewhat dissatisfying given the import of this issue well i understand but he not the statute doesn't say that i didn't think that you can change a risk assessment tool post conviction no you can't the risk assessment tool is just something that has to be selected by t a rolling thing it can change over time apparently they can yes they can choose a different risk assessment tool later they can do that but they can't change if it was ten years if you have to register they can't make it fifteen because they suddenly decide that domestic violence is a greater risk than stranger violence that is the risk assessment doesn't go to that at all you can't they can't extend it by the risk assess know if it has happened in the past that the statute has been amended to change the registration requirements risk assessment can't do but know it because it's not tied to the risk assessment mean we should stop and make clear this is your risk level it is it is public information is reported on the registry but in terms of what you have to do because of the risk level there's only two things that it affects one is as much as my opponent mentioned if your e a a level three risk in this in postcards to people who are in the vicinity and then there's a so on my monthly credit update i was get an update on the sex offenders in the neighborhood that would be all of them right based just on the on the registration requirement that's right it's to level one on a that's forever going to get that no that's right the the risk level is only actually tied to those two things that i just mentioned the defendant doesn't receive anything showing how their risk assessment worked yet whether they got points for stranger victim or they didn't they do not they  there's no way to even know if an error was made let alone challenge the heir no there there isn't and but i think this goes to the whether this is works an underlying deprivation of a protected interest in the st place and as i was saying it doesn't need stigma because it's just a predictor of prognostication was it more stigmatic for me to find out my next door neighbor has a high risk of recidivism versus a low risk it might be so it might be stigmatizing in the ordinary sense that would not be stigmatizing in any constitutionally significance because it's not a concrete misrepresentation of fact they also have not asserted a plausible plus remember the stigmas not enough for due process you also have to have the plus and here they've confirmed in their briefing on appeal that the plus they're complaining about is what rd parties do in reaction to the registry not the state but other people seeing individuals on the registry and denying them employment housing opportunities under this court's decision in t bo that is not a plausible plus because it has to be a deprivation by the state not by through pardons the other argument that they've made in their brief is the this idea of the threat of prosecution for violating your report reporting requirements and that is a plus but if the felony prosecution for violating your reporting requirements to springs us right back to mazen jennings because that is traced on the underlying often so not these risk levels in my redeeming time i do want to address this idea that the statute is is punitive in effect and they really have a steep burden in this regard st of all as the supreme court said in smith versus do only the clearest showing can negate the legislature's intent to create a civil regulatory scheme you have the smith analysis itself which largely maps onto the texas program and was not a close decision in fact in this court decision in united states for his young the court said smith was not even a close call and then you have all of the courts that have said this program is not punitive in effect and we list those decisions on pages thirty nine to forty eight of our brief i just want to focus on the arguments that they've made as to why this case is somehow different answer tips the balance to the punitive in effect and side of the ledger first of all they say that all these decisions you cited come before the two thousand and seventeen and then minutes to the program but they never even identify what those amendments were features that they are complaining about all date to two thousand and five or earlier and the decisions that we cite almost all came after that they also cites a series of state court decisions  that and they say these courts have emphasized certain features of the program to make it punitive i'll just quickly address those one of these requirements is in person reporting and here i would just point out and the other two the lack of an individual ised assessment in again and in smith the supreme court said it is perfectly acceptable to regulate sex offenders as a class and not providing individualized judgment that is distinguishable because the court relied heavily on this requirement that you cannot live work or loiter within a one thousand feet of a school there's nothing like that in texas as program and also the fact you'd update your information immediately with authorities texas doesn't have that either you have to don't some cities have those are local ordinances and that but that's not part of the program that some part of chapter six and those don't rely on  i'm sorry those don't rely on the risk assessment either they rely just on your conviction i would have to see the ordinance itself so i don't know the answer to that  but as to the risk level since we're talking about those i mean one of one of the complaints in smith was that alaska's program was insufficiently for cites because it just lumped the most serious offenders together with with the persons who are assessment that no one is sort of sitting down with you and interviewing you for a few numbers you're looking back in their history for very very specific facts in histories pretty pertain to that definit not all people there convicted of x y or z it is  individualized in that respect that's correct chief judge you know and but but it does the purpose and primary effect of that is to inform the public for their safety and that makes it not punitive and or smith if there are no further questions