was not badly imposed via section thirty five eighty three to the modification process was invalid condition was improper and it could not then the condition to be the basis for a valid revocation before modifying the district court must consider eight factors that are listed in section thirty five fifty three eg and nothing in the record shows the district court did this we have record proof that it said r thirty two the district court's order states none of those eight factors is a basis for the modification also since the halfway house condition adversely impacted mr mcrae the district court had to hold a rule thirty two point one hearing unless mr mcrae waived it the district court had during the revocation excuse me rather during the replication proceedings there was never a signed waiver form subsequently and on appeal the district court has authorized the government supplement the record to include the signed copy but that was never evidence when we filed the appeal and was never evidence during the revocation i don't think the government should be able to come in and give effect in the district court proceedings by offering the document on appeal and that's exactly what they've done without a valid waiver the condition couldn't be imposed and prove a valid waiver had to be in evidence at the replication of time cation decision beyond that signed form couldn't have resulted in a valid waiver because it did not state all of the rights that my client had that he would then be waiving by signing form and we cite a first circuit case on specific issues and it says that if you don't know what all your him and that's exact circumstance here with the waiver form your respective of the government's now belated effort to tender signed document the waiver form human and signed form is invalid and shouldn't be accepted moving on then to the second point to revoke a person supervision person must either personally admitted violation enter nolo contendere or there has to be a finding with sufficient proof by the government that the person violated the condition there was no personal admission in this case it was only a statement by the attorney and that doesn't cut it under a plot line and we cited that case in our brief there was not an entry of so by default this falls into the third category and that's why we made the contention that we did about due process and the right to confront the adverse witness about the government's burden of proof that it had gone the district court then i'm the basis of the contest proceeding in establishing the evidence in  fashion the government didn't do that step the government says the attorney said the guy violated the condition but again the block says that's an adequate and there's reason for that there should be a colloquy there should be something akin to rule eleven where the individual admits what he did wrong and that is consistent with lovelock at least by way of the analogy in the block in any event says about the necessity of the admission personally from the individual dependent and it again probation office made that representation we don't really know we have a person my clients in jail he wants to get out and they presented with a form in some fashion it's a power dynamic he wants to get out he wants to please his probation officer whatever the case is you know the form get signed but again it's never tendered to the district court there's never an inquiry about how the form came into being what were the circumstances and again i really have to emphasize because it wasn't present to the district court it shouldn't be relied upon now was defective proceeding because there was not a valid waiver for greasier for a couple months earlier three months something he was committed for thirty seven months as i recall and i mean to this halfway house one hundred eighty days had that was never presented but i think it's important to me to live in a way what does it mean to live in that western you know you're there with a bunch of other people who are transitioning out of a prison you're under strict rules about things that you was but again it's about whether the condition is valid or sports and that's are that's our concern here is the government's burden we don't think it met its burden we think that the conditions never badly in effect would it what it isn't there something that it's got to go back that they the government concedes and we appreciate concession that the supervised release condition requiring my client to provide notice to third parties about risks associated with this simple in my view the simplest thing is not to impose the condition let it be the probation officers responsibility if they think the general gentleman poses a risk to contact people and i think the government's taken a similar position let it be on the probation office there as i birded that's that's what you want we would ask enchanting but yes absolutely and we're talking about whatever he she got agreed on something that's right here from there with well we agree on that unless the court has questions about anything else i reserve the balanc court the defendant agreed to the imposition of the hundred eighty day stay at halfway house he signed the waiver form of the way reform is properly before this court of the government moved to supplement the record on appeal with the executed form oh it's something that was presented to the district court because we made clear in the motion to supplement the record on appeal that the purpose under rule of federal rule of appellate procedure ten of supplementing the record is not to fill gaps that  that were that were left by the parties of the district court but rather to have the record reflect what actually happened so there is no you know allusion in the district court about the fact that the executed form was actually presented at the time that the probation officer recommended the imposition of this condition that's why it's in the record on appeal and that's why it was included in our appendix so the defendant agreed to the condition he waived the hearing  the form contains a waiver provision and he signed the form even waived the condition is the lawyer twice during the revocation proceeding told the district court that her client had voluntarily agreed to the  for not for harming where is he now and for how long he was he's i'm not sure what what institution is in but he's in the bureau of prisons he's in custody of the of the court imposed two years of custody with your supervise release to follow not exactly sure when his release date is two is two years it's two years and he was taken into custody of when he was arrested on this violation which would have been late september early october violation there is a requirement either this court's decision in the labonte case or anywhere else that the defendant must personally address the court there's no there's nothing similar to rule eleven that's grafted on to rule thirty two point one and  just to observe the form was never the sign form was never in the record i specifically requested the dish court or the probation office send me the exact copy of the form that was in evidence at the time the revocation i got blank copy the unsigned form was in the district court record appears that it was in signed copy was in the probation officers files but again it's a belated effort to bring an executed form to court to prove the validity of the condition and that's too late also again the court had to consider thirty five three eight backers it did not the district court had to rely on a waiver form if they were to do so that explained on my client's rights the form did not first circuit case that think is dispositive on think it was on the low end of six twelve seven thirteen something along those lines like lange came in the government wanted and essentially within the guidelines sentence my client asked for the low and if there wasn't back to violation the judge sent him off for two years and so everything about this was irregular nothing about this was right and i think that leap should be great with his original sentence was for thirty seven months years yes and he's sixty six years old and he was