as she did clerical error the condition ends up going away this court we believe however needs to address the distinction in order to provide guidance to the trial courts and defendants on this this could present a rule thirty six motion and say ten years from now after this appeal unresolved without any objection that it was waived or not raised on direct appeal this is the posit that judge incorrectly ordered consecutive three year terms of supervised release this court said that's clearly illegal a are not clerical error but if you look at the love case and we in the braxton brown smith case which we think are the most applicable is from two thousand and ten they are this court addressed the issue of it he'll be reminded for the court the district court to remove the condition that was not ever mention that sentencing and  stance in procedures for imposing conditions of supervisor elise and you i'm saying that eighteen us c three five eight three subsection c and d provides how a district court is to order conditions of supervise clerical errors which can always be correct well that's a position the government will like this court to take that we believe that the government doesn't dictate on one meal bases that this should be remanded that this court should make that decision right but if we could say we've had exceptions to what a extension well i guess our position continues to be that in the decision whether to impose a condition supervised release specially one is serious as a sex offender registration that is always you did judicial after that is not a clerical act that's  condition question can we nonetheless enforce the appeal whatever with respect to the second question about sentencing the basis for sentencing whether she took the mental health information into account very obvious at least as to what was discussed she never mentioned his way her right to challenge either term a supervised released or a condition and i don't know whether you can else he can imply with a record that there was sufficient in the united states this court should reject opponents request for sentencing rehearing in this case other than the sort of registration requirement mistake on the district court's written judgment appellants other claims are waived a form of the of the of death cards written judgment no one talked about this in their written pleadings to the court it wasn't discussed at the sentencing proceeding it is not applicable based on the facts of this case the of the march thirty first transcript so what we have there's three boxes on the form if you look at is the firearms box the d n a registration box and the sort of box and so much what should have been checked was the first two realize this is a formality like we got to get the formalities correct i guess the way we would we would ask the court to look at it this fall if we agree that love and bracks and brown smith apply in this way to the extent that there was a difference between the district courts written judgment and their pronounced sentence then what love says is that difference in the written judgment is a knowledge and so we agree with that in this case the difference is the sort of registration arm and additionally that farms box wasn't checked so that  knowledge so what we're asking this court to do is apply the waiver provision to orally pronounce sentence and if you do that then it's really into single shabelle from the this kind of difference between i understand i'm just saying that when you say no the i guess in my view the appeal waiver is his patients and you know it might wait things that aren't think we just missed it on the on the written on the written form but i once you saw it well so and this is a this obviously outside the record once i started working on this case we considered going back into the district  to request the change in or rule thirty six but at that point the case was already at the circuit so we thought just procedurally it made more sense to to make arguments on the appeal but it isn't under rule thirty six that's the one where you can craft a judgment at something that she's standing on or something that she thinks is and i'm stating it was our belief that was because the case was already at the circuit for the purposes of appeal that it was it would have been procedurally difficult for it potentially for the district court to act on that you know says at any time this kind of combination of the of the appellate waiver and what was i guess going back is really kind of an academic point whether this was a clerical error or legal because either way indirectly from smith and law that the judgment should be conforms to agree with the orally pronounced sentence and that's what we're asking the court to do but there's really no reason that's the only reason why this case needs to go back to the district court for that one change would you case from the tenth circuit the name of the case is joe and what happened in cujo was it was kind of this combination of a clerical clerical error and an appellate waiver and what the judge what's what the what the tenth circuit  that's the sort of registration requirement needs to be fixed other than that there was there's absolutely no reason for for example a full blown re sentencing proceeding and there's no difference in this appellate waiver from that from the pell waivers that were forced pronouncement of the court i'm just thinking about institutionally from the perspective of a corner heels i have to consider what's our jurisdiction to tell that to the district court that's why i'm focusing on the appeal way of her thinking well fine you can see that or it's again i get well if i get to the extent that the court was concerned about that then they could follow the cujo analysis and simply say we're going to enforce the appellate waiver person just like we did in indian and adams and warder the government to fix this pursuant to rule thirty six let's play that out if the district court said no this is what i meant to do this i meant to enforce the sort of registration requirement so government you're i'm denying your rule thirty six motion i think that would be in a few of the water and then we could address it in that way but we think that you much authority into the government's hands and the second part about that was raised by the no one talked about it and that's how we know it's a clerical error oh well that's exactly what happened in block case and brax around smith no one talked about these conditions