raised a procedural challenge to the ten year term of supervised release and i'd like to talk a little bit about that in giving his reasoning the district court said that he was giving double term of supervised release in this case because of the need for sex offender treatment so that ten year term is warranted to give you enough enough time to confirm you're currently attending to everything this was an arbitrary sentence without any factual basis in the record there was nothing offered that sex offender treatment would take remotely as long as ten years or anywhere near that in addition it was substantively and reasonable because the district court rely to a great extent on the twenty five year old sex offender or a sex offense the defendant had committed twenty five years in the past and this defendant although the government argues that he has an abysmal record on supervised release he has not had any new sex offense any new offense whatsoever that involves a victim or any sexually deviant behavior we have to look at the whole scheme work and sexual offense cases because there isn't really any you know the whole way that they approach it is that pedophiles don't get better and so that's why they have lifelong registration and so whether you have another offense or not that's why even a lot of people fight you know think like ok failure register that's not nearly as bad as you know offending you know committing another offense with a minor but the problem is the whole thought process between lifetime registration is if you don't know where they are if you can't identify these people if you don't know what they're doing then society set risk so you're kind of pushing there's an avalanche of case law against you on the constitutionality of you know holding people you know under two ninety registration and all of that that's not good for you i understand that your honor but i think that there's a difference between offenses and i think that if people don't register we don't even know where they are and sometimes you don't even know whether they are doing anything unless someone reports it so it's it's a little bit of a circular argument but it's not one that generally fares well in the courts for offenders ok well i let me try me people can actually in california sometimes can get a life sentence for failure to register depending on what the prior record is your honor let me let me turn to the sex offender conditions because even even for a sex offender who has failed to register still under the statute thirty four thirty five eighty three d you still have to take those conditions still have to relate to goals of deterrence or rehabilitation of the defendant or protection of the public that doesn't change just because this is a sex offense and if you look at those conditions when it's something is twenty five years old those that reasoning collapses because the statutory reasons of protecting the public or rehabilitating rehabilitating the defendant those conditions may have served those purposes twenty five years ago but they don't necessarily serve the serve they can't be justified twenty five years later because perhaps you know the defendant doesn't need to be rehabilitated and under the same sort of plan their eighty's that continue to be pedophiles that's as opposed to rapists that sometimes of adults but let me ask you this in terms of what the court told him that you're talking about that it needed to be more specific in the cases that talk about this in your case if i understand the record correctly your client does not have any children so he doesn't run the risk of if he has contact with his own children that that that would be an offense am i correct on that that's correct all right and he was determined a sex offender somewhat twenty three years ago or something i mean he was convicted of a sex  fense so in terms of his employment i am assuming he's not currently holding a job where he's working and would have contact with children no no that's that's correct so i'm just wondering you know the you know the sky is falling and that he's going to the no contact condition is going to be covering inadvertent contacts don't those facts and united tara kind of protect him from that situation taro pre dated wolf childs i think is the more important precedent in this round that really went through  with a fine tooth comb conditions exactly like this and unpacked them and really held the district court to the fire in terms of what kind of findings they have to make before ordering such a broad conditions and that those conditions were on the original sex offense so even if this court were to not not rule that this condition was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague in this instance it's completely different from sarah taro because tara was the original sex offense that those conditions were tied to these sex offender conditions are tied to a twenty five year old offense and that you know the defendant has been in prison for a bit of that time a lot of that time and he has been living in the remote part of the navajo nation and is homeless but there's not a black hole where he's out there committing crimes that we don't know about crimes are committed our crimes are prosecuted in federal prisons all the time a sexual offenses and sexual offenses are reported on the reservation routinely and prosecuted either by tribal police or the federal government so he can't prove a negative but in this twenty five year period he has no new sexual offenses or any sort of offenses against another person he has classed the violations which in the commission's terms call them technical violations for failure to report that is all and she has done  over the course of since he since he has been on supervised release he has done almost sixteen months on those technical violations and he will never be able to come to this court and a unreasonable because by the time they reached his these short sentences by the time they reach the appellate court it's moot because he has served his sentence but i think this court should consider that he has done over the lifetime of the supervisor least sixteen months on technical morning good morning rachel hernandez on behalf of the united states the sentence imposed here for the defendants repeated breaches of the court's trust were reasonable and not an abuse of discretion what you have here is a person who has it does have an abysmal record and has remained in the community untreated unrepentant has not checked in with probation has multiple violations for these things and in fact to answer a question that your honor had he's not currently working he's currently in custody on failure to register charges in utah ok but you know giving him the benefit of what court found that where the defendant had lived the last twenty years without committing a sex offense the sex offender conditions did not have a reasonable relationship with the terrans public protection and rehabilitation well i would say  doesn't apply for a few reasons first of all here in t m i think the court said yes an outdated conviction without more is insufficient but here you have a couple of things he has not he during the time since  original conviction to now he has spent twenty years in custody a year and a half or more as a fugitive and then the rest of the time trying to get through supervised release so if this is not a case that has without more there's more here and the more here is he has a new conviction for failure to register and that case the case we're here on his second supervised release was sentenced in two thousand and twelve and in two thousand and twelve in the original sentence for this case the sex offender conditions were deemed  of course there is of course there's a difference but the courts have held that these conditions are appropriate when you're dealing with somebody given this history i mean essentially failure to register was a that the sex offender conditions the requirement to check and that's why this the statute for this crime permits lifetime supervision you know what i wonder and i'm not suggesting we going to make that the rule but i suspect the nature of the a thin mints in the facts of the first offense less assume it's only one will have some determination as to what should be an appropriate remedy and in this case on these a less than life well i would say that exactly the sentence here is reasonable the district court said if i'm making a mistake here i'm erring on the side of too light of a sentence given the thirty five eighty three factors the nature and circumstances of this defendant and his history of a brutal molestation of a thirteen year old his for supervised release violations in that case his to his new conviction in this case and it's to supervise release violations in this case and so i agree with what your honor is suggesting which is on these facts in this case where this defendant has adult children where the sole terro clarifies what is meant by the condition of no contact with minors i think on these facts the court  that it is i'm sorry that the court said it's not incidental contact and that it's not passing somebody in the streets passing somebody on the sidewalk i think defend in their opening brief they said you know buying girl scout cookies to that i would say if a girl scout rings your door about well that's not that's inadvertent contact if you put up a sign or you put a notice in the community paper saying hey i'm looking to buy girl scout cookies or you go to a girl scout meeting that's not incidental contact additionally the question of contact with family members again he has adult children there's a provision in the in the condition that says without prior approval if he wants to go to a grandchild's birthday party he can seek approval and maybe the probation but i think that the court made it clear the government added the condition knowingly contacting knowing contact with minors which which makes it clear ok thank you well we have a problem that this court can't solve i don't know where he'd make put it was showing these to make but we have to look at the record and what what is the legal question before us in your view the legal question is whether the district about the conditions of the sentence just one question i had the government has not made it but it's only that resonates in my head is that we have someone who at the time committed we can all agree a very bad offense and that the terms of supervised release had been put in place then may be appropriate i understand a masters have to agree with that but that's when we look at this case now was twenty five years ago but during that time period he has not done a good job on supervised release and isn't there a policy argument made that if someone is a sex offender and they do a very very bad job of supervised release that the reward should not be well the the strict charms don't apply because twenty five years ago should the policy are going to be well whether harsh or not harsh we have to look at each individual defendant in each individual sentence and when the district court is fashioning a sentence you make a sentence that's appropriate for that person not not using plain kit terms or boilerplate it's based on things that may or may not have happened in the in the past if you look at congressional ten intent on the purpose of supervised release is to get someone to reenter society and be a law abiding person and so i think in this case perhaps you know those conditions don't make sense for this defendant at this time but other more onerous conditions perhaps due to redress the actual problems that this defendant faced as a homeless man in a remote part of the navajo nation that  we're kind of putting on these one size fits all sex offender conditions tethered to something that happened in the past that perhaps this defendant needs a different kind of different conditions that are more carefully tailored to his you have some expert who's saying you you you can function will with change and we don't have any of that in this record you don't have anything other than mr yellows that's true your honor and now  that if he's so cute then you'll have a clue as to what he might do to change and the court has improved and i haven't made up my mind but i'm going to consider the og but you have to be concerned with the individual and if you are concerned with him then you might want to help him in one of the ways to help him if he needs professional help to help him get it absolutely because that won't be our requirement we don't have the the authority required but