good morning made please the court kristen there on behalf of appellant philip sanderson i'd like to reserve two minutes for a bottle and i'll watch my time and try to do that they at issue in this appeal are for conditions of supervise release with unconstitutionally vague and overbroad language and these are conditions that are imposed for the rest of mr sanderson's life this court just last month in evans re irms that the constitution mandates that supervised release conditions be clear for many reasons and first of which of course is to put the defendant on notice as to what is prohibited and what he must do to comply with his supervised release also significant and another important purpose though is to give the probation officer clear notice of what must be done to comply with the conditions so that the probation officer doesn't have  ettered discretion and have a hard time guessing at what the probation officer is allowed may authorize the defendant to do and then also of course it's important for the courts to have a clear condition especially here there's a lifetime supervision term so it's likely that mr sanderson will not only have different probation officer supervising him but should issues arise there could be different district courts which once you have a problem and so i'd like to focus on two conditions today with the court's permission first the the employment restriction and the residency restriction which are significant restrictions on important aspects of his life to reducing employment employment yes occupational restriction which is special condition number three it specifically states that a fifth and it shall not engage in any occupation either paid or volunteer that caters to known persons under the age of eighteen and the problem really is the word caters it's vague it has a very broad and a more fist meeting meaning which is demonstrated by the district court's comments at sentencing at the record at page two thirty eight no he wasn't nothing he was interested in the prog free because of that i believe that started a little it's unclear the timing with that but what he said about wal mart is that sometimes he would stay at wal mart longer i mean work that necessary to accomplish his goals against that background why wal mart situation wal mart offers services from groceries to furniture so that that business caters to minors that's how the dish or court interpreted it and that's not necessarily how everyone else would interpret it or other what about a grocery store right anywhere that children could almost anything that sells services or goods is going to have something that appeals to children or is marketed towards children or parents to buy for their children and what makes this overbroad if that is the meaning of this word is that mr sanderson when he gets out of prison will be a convicted felon his employment opportunities will be restricted by that which is what would you have it say so that it would cover what we might think of as true catering to children but how would you reword it so that it would make sense and in your view not be big yes you're there there's probably many different ways the dish court could tailor this but some examples would be perhaps  an occupation that primarily its primary purpose is to cater to children maybe some limitation on that he not interact with children alone in an occupation you know something that makes sure it's public that's another thing these are all public you know big stores would have other people there this is not you know one on one interaction so if that's what the district was getting at there's many different ways the district court could tailor this and this court usually remains for that modification  itself isn't your complaint in the abstract it's the defining it absolutely and it's the specific language we don't dispute that the dish court has discretion and provided some reasons for giving such a condition both overbroad and vague because of what the discord indicated the disk or interpret it to mean something that i suppose you know disney world caters to children so he can go to disney world under these circumstances correct and that might be an appropriate limitation because that is more directly a business that is marketed towards children not solely children but much more children than adults which maybe shouldn't go there but but  there's there's definitely there's ways to tailor this to make sure that those are the businesses that are covered well really what are the other restrictions i'm sorry what about the other restrictions that you challenge to a lot of the kind of yes you're right which of the ones that you think are the most significant problems the employment as a covered and the residency restriction which is another important aspect of his life of course this is condition number five special condition five and it prohibits mr sanderson from residing in a location that has a direct view of places such as schools yards except her and i thought the government narrowed that to some degree or somewhat i think really bizarre a case that i'm published our case is said but also to clarify that directive you what does that mean that's the vague part that is it has window indirect for you is it where he enters apartment likely you'll have to rent you know if you're in an apartment building it's a huge building well part of the building has to be in direct view it might be just the window but that would be something for the discord to clarify especially because this is where he lives you know i mean and that could change but there could be places that pop up that are primarily used by children and he might have to move around a lot and so that's something that requires more specification because of the truth in in to his ability you know so where you list we've had these direct view cases before you on a narrow road trying to understand one possible solution would be to have to make sure that it's or to clarify with the discord that direct of you and location components and just address the places that had to be in direct view so we'd ask that both be modified or at least we have a chance to discuss that with the dischord again under this are well let me just ask this in terms of location  so he lives on the first floor so you are the basements we can't see anything yes but it's one of these apartment buildings like many of them would have it's a rooftop right so your suggestion wouldn't actually that well because you could be on the rooftop can't see anything from my basement apartment but and it's not a question of what i see from the corridor but what do i see from upstairs so what is your solution to that situation well we argue that the most reasonably tailored solution would be where he live where where he has actual residence where he can see when he's spending time in his unit or house or whatever it may be but you see the problem  in that situation that if he goes on a rooftop why could it be overbroad because that's a very common to ation in multiple story buildings these days and that would be quite a view would still submit that's not just quite didn't give reasons why it i guess i would presume he'd be spending lots of time on the roof and not in his own building or in his own unit so i'm just i would argue  congregate like a playground yes would you find full well it actually is broader than that because it says school yards parks public swimming schools recreational centers etc those recreational centers not necessarily a crime primarily children place so that was part of why the court sent back the convictions are so that would be correct thank  u please the court peter lovatt for the united states this case involves many undisputed and frankly frightening facts facts that come directly from the defendant statements he told agent turned that he has a thing for toddlers age zero to three he said he would leave go to wal mart to do an errand and then he would loiter and look at the little children he said he deserved it and then he would go back to his child pornography collection and excerpts of record page eight ninety nine he would masturbate he admitted that he can't be trusted to work with children he the district court said by choice he's tried not to work with kids it would be like laying drugs on a table that would be too easy he himself said if i work with them they look up to me they rely on me it would be too easy excerpts of record nine one four question the work he was a tax preparer your honor he can continue being a tax preparer children are involved in that i guess the question raised though is what this hater mean cater means to supply what is required and to say that it rather we can't it can't go to places where they can get work in places where they catered to children correct and seen as a grocery store cater to children under eighteen i think of you yes in this case viewing the operative term caters through the prism of this defendant this defect that but it's not really just the prism of this defendant it's the interpretation of what does cater  mean is it in am and my question is is it any establishment that children go to war doesn't mean to be have to be an establishment where a special affinity exists between children and the establishment well this is again a you know what i'm not disputing all what you said at first just trying to figure out when he gets out you know when he's out here on supervised release and he's looking at you know what  do or not do how do you link the cater between the location and the child will we link it this way kader it viz a viz the occupation restrictions says he can't work at home now he can go to walmart pick up something for his car go in check out can't loiter he can go there pick it up but he can't work there we can't do it if we insist target this so narrowly as to say ok you can't work at chuckie cheese or mcdonald's you can work anywhere else that does not that hamstrings the district court trying to do its duty under thirty five eighty three d one protecting the public this guy has triggers everywhere by his own admission he said i can't live quote he lives i live too damn close to the elementary school i mean those are easy those are easy answers and yes although he can't work in any kind of child care related the youth related school related maybe church or synagogue related but it's these public locations that children may go to how do you determine if something caters to children what a furniture store that sells know bedroom furniture does that cater to children for example i would argue yes it does your honor i would say working is a tax preparer does not cater to children before he was a tax preparer he worked in some sort of research laboratory at the university working with disturbed adults that does not cater with children to cater to children faced with the factual record in this particular case the district court had to to discharge its duty of protecting the public and protecting the community fashioned broad not over don't know how to assess the likelihood of a relationship working out but you never know before he hears but he may a man and these restrictions would apply to his own children no they would not your honor now how do we coul would he know that different situation yeah but he did go by case the mother i mean he has to comply with the stock human this documents seems to put him in violation if he comes around his own children i know is hypothetical but it office say i met somebody we're thinking of having kids does this stop me from being with my kids and the probation officer of course is going to say no it doesn't have any can move to modify you took the words right out of my mouth that that's another reasonable possibility but there's not and i spoke to our trial attorney who worked on this and when these things come up at sentencing the government's not going to oppose the father being with his own child it simply doesn't play out in that manner  the next restriction is the defense counsel focused on is the residency restriction and supervised condition the special condition number five and in that case in our case the frequented by minors under eighteen is something a phrase that modifies all of the foregoing places and obviously here the term is not meant the restriction is not meant to probe preclude him from living in an apartment building a mile from a children's park it's not totally so you would be willing to make that clear under the are to have that in our lineage by the district court yes your honor and that would solve that at least that aspect of the yes it would your honor  be a defendant cannot move for a modification of a supervised release conditions for the legalities so so sanderson would only be able to modify to ask that under his personal history and characteristics they've changed in the disc or would have discretion he would be stuck with this probably could be because he can't raise it as a constitutional challenge which is what gets that strict scrutiny to ensure that the familiar rights are protected so that's not really a solution for him so how would you remedy we'd remedy it by asking for the court to send it back for modification to ensure that specifically to modify the portion that that the probation officer has to consent to this to an association with his own children and that there must be another bird sponsible adult present because there is nothing that shows that those were necessary conditions should he have should he have children natural natural thank you thank you the case of united states versus sanderson is submitted thank you both for coming over from las vegas today