please the court counsel my name's daniel ls i'm with the federal public defender's office they represent mr givens on this appeal he challenges to supervised release conditions and the inclusion of the special assessment in the judgment since no special assessment was if the court were inclined to grant relief on the first portion of the argument it's that the supervisor releasing the release condition itself has the see enter requirement and the defendant asked that that condition include santa requirement as expressed in the guideline and the judge refused so that is inconsistent with thirty five eighty three v three and of course the statute says that we should impose conditions that have the last deprivation of liberty is possible but also that you should impose a condition that's consistent with what the commission has required in condition runs afoul just by excluding the scienter requirement as for your honour's question though with respect to the jurisdiction yes you can obviously leave the jurisdiction unknowingly hard to the example you gave the brief is a simple one but if you don't is often a car that's travelling and you don't know that the driver is going to leave the jurisdiction you are in via elation of the condition just by the act of the drive through no fault of your own but more fundamentally you can imagine throughout the counties that comprise the northern district of illinois science requires courts had opinions where it's expressed concern about conditions that don't have scienter you've done a lot of legwork on cases about conditions of supervised release and i know somebody asked me before that we've had a lot of opinions we've said what we need to say and yet judges even when asked to include something that is expressed the state in the condition chooses to omit it and that's a problem here as far as jurisdiction more broadly there's a huge difference between judicial district and jurisdiction and so imagine your state parolee you're not allowed to leave the state you're a federal convict and you're out on a supervised release you have last rights to travel within the state even though you're a resident of the state but furthermore the court has jurisdiction everywhere has the power from by lee the supervised release conditions the court has the authority to gring you in and hold you accountable jurisdiction  would refer to geographic writing fiction but jurisdiction is not and the two should not be confused and the judge did not express any thing in the record to say that he understood that one was different from the other impacts then judge sykes my client's fundamental right to trap which is undisputed that he has that right and i don't think that people should be confined to a geographic spot a locality when as citizens on supervised release you still have a fundamental right and they should be able to travel wherever they wish to make a better life their supervisor and their probation officers elsewhere this is not something where because of administrative convenience for the probation officers somebody should sacrifice their fundamental right and to me that's very apparent here in when again you go to using judicial district in no way that supposed to communicate jurisdiction i think that causes problems you can give permission that this is what you have to do to the judge based addition and there's more to it actually than that as i understand because if the judge says ok you can go but there's another jurisdiction that you want to go to and they're going to refuse to allow you to come in then you can't go either so we have a bureaucrat ization of the fundamental right that ultimately results in somebody losing that fundamental right through the way the process unfolds another reason to avoid certain i'd say maybe another reason to avoid the  if there's a valid reason to do so judge that i have a better answer than than no restrictions at all i should have thought in more thoughtful thirty five eighty three d three not a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary to accomplish the goals wholesale ban on still engage especially sensually in the child sex junkets the words places that were poorly it minister in this regard like thailand or the philippines and some spots where this has been you could restrict travel perhaps to those places with reference to the necessary steps to effect but if somebody is engaged in drug possession drug distribution rather they should be able go and have a better life somewhere else and maybe get him them out of some of these places where the people are around that they fall into bad habits in bad ways this is a superior way of handling things as opposed to say year and peonage not going to apply for a transfer to my jurisdiction where you want to go live you want to live in texas  get a different probation officer can should come to the court and say it's too limited to say the northern district of illinois yes but more fundamentally if you've got a right to travel she do have to go there and ask for that permission and that can be denied for all sorts of reasons as opposed to in plea going and say in advance and leaving and alerting the probation officer in this new place where you go to that you are there that's a less restrictive way of doing this  then the goal is consistent with the statute burning through to the remaining contentions that that sort of is the tail wagging the dog down that let's let's the defendant on supervised release decide who's going to supervise him that that can't be right no it doesn't it lets them be in a place it's ultimately for the court to decide that you mean under supervision and for the probation officer to staff the case supervision is only practical in geographic terms and it is yes we are an electronic society but supervision really is only practical in this goes beyond bureaucratic considerations it's really a human endeavor it's not love that morning may it please the court my name is roger lott i represent the united states in this matter the condition imposed by the district court here regarding travel is a condition that this court has previously held is an administrative condition and in particular imposing it without an added scienter requirement was approved by this court in united states versus poland it's cited in the briefs and that was the procedural challenge as i read the case it wasn't a substantive challenge i think this one is a substantive challenge and your honor regarding that the substantive challenge here i think there are a number of reasons why this condition is warranted confining someone to judicial district is geographic area there is an administrative convenience to the probation office and that that's how they organize themselves as right under just mentioned it but what about the knowingly requirement so the issue of the knowingly requirement is one about how to effect y administer this condition and i think judge powers question earlier really had if it's it's pretty constrained to conceive of circumstance and such which somebody would unknowingly leave for the leaving you do the judicial district would be the a no and we part my understanding the thrust of the argument at sentencing was that the burden would be on the government to prove that the defendant in fact knew the boundaries of the judicial district if he violated this condition the district court consider that and said the defendant is in the best place to learn those boundaries i want to put the incentive on the defender to know it removing that requirement actually creates a perverse incentive which is to not learn the boundaries because if you don't know the boundaries you can always say if you get into trouble down the road well i don't know and i think if you look at the other conditions where this court has required a scienter requirement it's very different it's where there is a real risk of an unknown violation so for example the old condition about meeting people engaged in criminal activity was silent about whether you had to know they were engaged in criminal activity and there you can see the risk of meeting somebody having no idea that they were engaged in productivity and really it's not practical to interrogate every person you come into contact with to make your own determination if they're engaged in karate here we're talking about boundaries of a district the district isn't actually known at the time of sentencing because the defendant will decide when he's released from prison where he wants to go so he's not going to be restricted just to coming back to where he was which was the northern district of illinois if you choose to come back here he was specifically directed at the sentencing that he should learn the boundaries of the district and not to jump around too much but i think this confusion with your adit jurisdiction judicial district is not at all present in this case where it was discussed at sentencing where the district court used the term judicial district and said you know you need to learn the boundaries of the judicial district that you're being used by i'm sorry i need you map with i'm going to and i believe that is the practice of of probation and some district court judges  actually are doing that now the only issue i think where we would want to require that is we don't know for sure at the time of sentencing what judicial district it's going to be the statute does use the term jurisdiction it's confusing under the statute uses the term jurisdiction the sentencing guidelines which the recommendation of the sentencing commission uses the term judicial district i think we're talking about judicial district here in jurisdiction is a term that can have a power of the court meaning they can also have geographic meaning clearly here the statute is using jurisdiction in the geographic sense i think the term judicial district further clarifies it and so it's probably helpful for and we've agreed to a limited remained the district court clearly gave that definition of greater than zero point zero eight percent and actually if you look at the judgment i think the clerk must have checked the wrong box because there's a box for that and there's a box for a blank the blank wouldn't require every sentencing would require the defendant to be brought back into the district and then the other issue is the oral pronouncement of the special session i dress that in the brief but the district court did tell the defendant orally at sentence at the sentencing hearing at which the sentence was imposed that it's mandatory and that because there are four counts it would be four hundred dollars here so i submit your honour's that is the equivalent of an oral pronouncement at at best in favor of the defendant's position it's ambiguous and the case is to make clear that if there's any ambiguity about the district court's intent it can be clarified by the written judgment which includes it so i don't believe that a recent unsing is necessary in this case to bottom it is for the court to say during sentencing what it means by excessive i recognize this is an ice cream a box that could be checked but that's not the definition of the judge decided to use and so i think that a fully manned is necessary for the judge to give the reasons and to his explanation for how much alcohol consumption he wants to permit as for administrative reasons to comply find somebody to replace calling something administrative doesn't mean that i still then valid and necessary to give effect the statutory language and in this case as judge sykes mentioned the statute says jurisdiction and it doesn't use that in a geographic sets it means within the power of the court so again while it is nice and administratively convenient to make somebody live someplace for ever the statute says jurisdiction we need to give a fact the meaning of the language from the statute and if we have cheapened the right that the individual has to travel by confined them to judicial district through the expression of a sentencing guideline that is ultimately inconsistent with the statute we need to go back from the statute allows so that it so on your reading  statute jurisdiction that refers to the power of the court any district court anywhere in the united states so this is that recommendation a recommended mandatory condition i guess this is a discretionary condition recommended discretionary say that the court can make you stay in the area where the courthouse is and the statute again says jurisdiction that means the power of the court when you are under supervised release you are under the power of the court where ever you are and you could be brought in from florida if you're there to made to answer for your conduct and it doesn't mean that you can make somebody live in the judicial district in the various counties around the courthouse as a condition supervised release because again that's inconsistent with the statute and so under thirty five