computer technology is not such that realistic pictures could be created in fact the expert was not actually qualified to make such a statement  didn't offer any corresponding or countervailing expert testimony so we're left with your cross examination of the only expert who testified and the district court's determination that under d'albert  relied on in terms of making a decision whether he relied on the expert testimony because the government back argue that he can only look at the pictures would agree though that we look at the totality of the of the evidence that was the due skin the addressing the claim that you are right that is correct and that is correct as a matter of law i believe the expert testimony was beyond belief because  the court was well aware of this court's decision of free speech coalition which had been issued at that point the supreme court decision came down about a week after the trial but this court had certainly indicated that congressional findings were clear that technology is in fact slash that computer can in fact generate images that are realistic looking and that in fact it is very difficult to determine whether or not an actual child is in fact or truth in the picture so your argument is that that line out of free speech somehow declares for all time as a matter of a l 't looking at these pictures or the technology that this expert was relying on in offering his opinion so why is that even relevant what congress has said if we're comparing different situations well because what congress is that is in fact technology is in fact at the point where computers can generate these images ok if i even if that's true we have testimony from an expert in this field that says ok i've looked at the pixels or whatever it is he examined and i conclude that that there just isn't any way that these pictures are virtual the except for the fact that it's an expert who testified to that point if you had put some evidence in the defense case where you somehow thought although i wonder how you've laid the foundation for it to admit the congressional conclusion or offered your own expert witness to undercut what the government's witness said but you didn't do that you're asking us to go beyond the record as it were and take this general statement from a congressional report i presume is where that comes from determine whether the expert was qualified to render the opinion and lucky i'm not i'm not sure that it's fact the judge rendered albert rowling well you look but that's not my point my point is you didn't offer any contravening evidence and now you want to reverse the conviction a well it's just like if at any given moment we think it might be sadistic but it's certainly not clear to the point that a person of ordinary intelligence would be able to discern what in fact is meant by that term  provided for this particular a fast that that the sentencing commission can promulgated factors that the court should consider in deciding where within the stats for a maximum this defendant should be punished i guess what i'm really challenging in my question is is there such a thing as an unconstitutional guide i think it's an interesting argue it's an interesting question and i can only turn to what what this court in the gallagher decision it's cited t warranted for this type of behavior i think it's wrong to then equate it to something that's completely different under the definition especially since the conduct certainly if the commission had once had to say that if the image portrays an act polygraph i don't think that has anything to do with well let's stick with the sex offender treatment related to your argument taken to its logical extreme would require the sentencing judge to literally outline every and he had this from the probation officer which he just lucked into doing and that's how we got these additional all of these were certainly recommended by the probation officer the judge however  park or playground he's never had inappropriate contact with the court did not explain why it would be necessary to do so here or a guy who basically tells the probation actors of record that's where the discussions of the defense of the actor's qualifications begins in roughly the middle of the page the government tenders the witness and the court says you don't need to do that he seems to have an adequate wilson and in fact in these defendants sentencing paper i think the supplemental sentencing paper he actually objected by number to some of the conditions here not the ones that we're talking about today but the some other ones and if you look at these conditions of people release no matter how you look at it in this case i think that there is no conflict between the oral judgement and the dancing in this case the second issue concerns whether or not there was sufficient findings by the district co that's rule that should be in place when the condition is objected to or the district or one of the parties actually asked for more findings judge why are you doing this but in this case there was no objection at all and i have a new rule for just the court judge that says look when the parties apparently agree on the conditions of supervised release you still have to go on record and say ok i know the parties agree there's no objection it's in the probation officers letter but our case law to those situations where a provision in the genes is written after the sentencing where the defendants had no notice whatsoever that the court contemplated including them so in this particular case the letter saves the case for the government i think the letter is one of the reasons why there's not a problem certainly would be a very different day of the sentencing so it can be very difficult to know exactly when the parties receive it i don't know of any objection on the record that the pre sentence report or the letter was provided less than thirty five days out of you know that take a step back in addition to the fact that there was no objection to the money this was a bench trial judge wilson heard three days of testimony about and i'm not going to go on all of that here i think that the panel familiar with the kinds of things would discuss the the opportunity to undergo cycle therapy now i understand now he's saying well i didn't ask for that has psychotherapy i asked for this kind of psychotherapy but again if you're going to fly an air it's hard to see how does wilson plainly err in ordering psychotherapy when the i think the issue that has generated the most litigation recently and i apologize for the rash of twenty a j letters in this case concerns the internet instruction now it is true as the defense has pointed out that some courts have struck down these restrictions as being over legitimate uses for the internet for example he starts working again if the suspect is minor and he needs to look on the internet to order crotons from amazon dot com or somewhere he can work with a probation officer he can be allowed to do that i think it's very important to recognize here it's not a one hundred percent then you can never use it if you can use it but with the permission of the probation officer and many courts have upheld that's type of condition when there is a probation officer exception there are some cases it is true that holder even with a probation officer exception that that that condition is overbroad but none of them are in the plane air review which is what we're doing here today and lastly there is the search condition then i started that what i can never pronounce the name  recommending all those conditions from a probation officer in advance of the sentencing which you don't get in other districts in the nicer well that's true certainly what i was saying is because of that you can even wear no objection was raised i internet this seems to me to be absolutely beyond hey all common sense tells you that we don't want your client back on the internet he does bad things when he gets on the internet well you know all i can see that