a greater deprivation of liberty the necessary this court's case law approves of conditions that's a fine the prohibited criminal street gave the nd circuit recognized the standard in green citing this court's decisions in vegas and so tara where the specific ngs were prohibited as the governing standard the most analogous on point case is a circuits june t opinion in washington which invalidated a condition that only used the word game which is the same condition that we have here that washington was not playing why i started by noting that this court has approved repeatedly conditions that specified the specific game and or used the can grow in all definition or conduct congressionally defined term criminal still reviewed the condition it's not for abuse of discretion so i'm having a hard time understanding how that stands for the proposition that you're entitled to deny her review here we are not arguing that  argument that there should be no gain condition then with there would be abuse of discretion review we are challenging the vagueness over breath and the greater deprivation deprivation of liberty that's inherent when the only word i think the better phrase would be criminal street gangs inside statutorily defined and the court insult even referred to criminal street gang is slightly more amorphous i think the best standard in the legal standard based on that ok you don't know jack so if it is plain error and i said it didn't come out for play or your clients to present her quite a long time and then when he gets out what prevents him from talking with probation officers and i want to make sure exactly understand you know let's talk about everything why isn't that the remedy here as opposed to something you didn't say worthy of objecting to the district court he's hanging around with street gangs and present i'm sure you know that probably probably on a daily basis that's the reality of the prison situation with respect to letting the probation officer clarify what the condition means sotero lots of cases to that the judge to just record this court article three officers are delegating their authority to the probation officer and the reality is the probation officer is going to rely on the u s attorney's office to file any petition to revoke so in essence the lack of notice is at best delegated to the probable base an officer to provide clarity but the reality is it's  authority to the probation officer even worse to the executive branch especially when it's something so easily corrected  criminal street gangs and all it's as a surrealist if the probation officer becomes aware of facts that would support imposing that condition and it becomes a discretionary decision with the district court here we have a pro not there is in any attempt to go beyond criminal gangs the question is is there really any practical any confusion in terms of the application of this term and the court didn't find yes you're right it was not in isolation so i don't know i don't understand and maybe this is not something you're in a position to respond to but let's assume that  know in this case it's not playing there or whatever but you just told me that c government would have been happy with something like criminal gang or criminal street gang and at least the latter is such a tory definition so why ask the government done that at least in your district on a on a routine basis  government is still using the general term gang as a restriction even though it has the ability to easily change that and make it  much clearer well just the just to clarify in terms of the record here this thing come on a recommendation from the united states this was the term of the of that so that's that's helpful that is different from the situation of my district since thank you very much for clarifying that earlier and just to clarify briefly with respect to the  clearly a nd prong well st and nd problem whether there is any error at all and whether or not the the are you there is plain error given the court's precedent here and i do want to clarify one thing  mr rhodes refers to the fact that that was pro prior cases referred to criminal street gangs and that that has a statutory it's a constitutional issue where you're attacking that a provision that is socially unconstitutional or constitutional is supplied to your client what's constitutional  large but specific to him because it's vague and overbroad and provides a lack of notice and then delegates to the probation office and again to the prosecutor ultimately determining what they think it means if i can talk