insufficient evidence of unknowing violation of the special condition of attendance at a halfway house and it is the impact of his mental illness schizophrenia which is the core of the argument the court at page one thousand and seven of the appendix found that he was not laboring under any disability i respectfully submit that was clear error the record in this case demonstrates a did counsel at that hearing raised the tell the court that this was a reflection of his schizophrenia that he was having a psychotic break he did not  did the contention here is that looking at the court's findings that supported the violation here was a finding that he was not laboring under any disability and respect was meant that that would be inaccurate if he was laboring under such a severe disability such as schizophrenia as having an effect on whether he was committing a knowing violation of that special condition court to conclude that as lopez said this was the to misunderstand well i think it was his mental illness was always there it was so it was through a course of proceedings this wasn't the the last what i mean this was a series in which is mental on illness was always an issue and his mental illness was st brought up ten months earlier his trial counsel at that time said that he was suffering from serious mental illness including schizophrenia and that it was something that was struggling with for most of his adult life and that he was using drugs to self medicate it's also in the record here that he he stopped taking  well there was an order and it's interesting the order was a little bit different here than the prior order that had been given prior order was a direct order that he received mental health treatment and this is the three sentencing two and  t in the order that the subsequent order here at issue when he's ordered to the halfway house it was mental health treatment if needed if directed so it wasn't it was a conditional order  it was also an order the didn't it didn't require the mental health treatment st and that's one contention here i think looking at this record and perhaps hindsight is two thousand and twenty but in a sense that's what happened here is come back he didn't comply there was a concern by the judge that he wouldn't be able to comply the judge noted i don't feel comfortable wondering whether you're going to be back here again and i think it was all related to just how serious this mental illness he had was so in turning to then looking at what happened in this intake interview i think there is an argument here that it was purely symptomatic of  schizophrenia untreated and so what was the st thing that he isn't and and i'm just echoing my colleague that that wasn't raised before the district court and he has it by that it was a misunderstanding that hearing took place months after the titian was did i would say you look at this record bent over backwards i submit though particularly given the knowledge of the existing knowledge and it being brought up during the course of proceedings over ten months of  mental health having a bearing on what was going on and that he was having trouble with compliance up to this point and the judges and i would say understanding even though it was not raised by counsel that it was an issue and  finding that he was not laboring on an under disability the judge also said that he had mental health issues in the past while i submit that that is not consistent with the disease of schizophrenia is i chronic it is frankly it often gets worse it certainly when we see what he did the where he's he says st i can't comprehend i couldn't comprehend what he needed to explain to me well that is that's an absolute feature of schizophrenia and it affects the mind's ability to process and perceive what is going on around him and his and definitely information situation where he says st i think i've done enough time and therefore i'm not going to do any more time in the halfway house and if that was the only thing said might be one thing but then he turns right around and he's saying send me to jail get the marshals to come and tek me up i want to go back to prison bottom line is i would say that just doesn't make sense and when it's not making sense it's irrational behavior directly connected i would say to his schizophrenia so that is the argument here as as saying that this was an unknowing violation i will point out by the way from the as an officer of the court in looking at this i've used the word knowing and you know you look at the applicable statute governing here doesn't use the word knowing now i would say that i looked in case law and there is there are cases that where it's come up and arguments have been made about knowing violations and in those cases the results have been yes they're the defendant knew so i've used those cases to point out to the court saying that well it there at least some indication of acknowledgement of that mens rea element in it and i think it's also common sense frankly i mean if you have someone so present with this condition you have to show up and the interview by your probation officer and you get hit by a car and you can't show up well no one would say that you violated that condition it would be because some intervening event happened something that prevented by do pointed out as as an officer of the period of time served a term of supervised release of one year but the st one hundred and twenty dollars days to be spent as a residential and tree center the district court expressed doubts as to whether or not mr lopez would be able to comply even indicating i hope i don't see you back in two weeks and then mr lopez replied he would quote do his best within seven days mr lopez violated again this time with respect to the condition pertaining to stay at the residential  entry center of on arriving at the bow in tears of america mr lopez adamantly insists that she has assigned caseworker anthony davis and to the director of the v o a my accordion i am not going to find any and take documents i am not going to spend any more minute any more minutes for the g o p the bureau of prisons or for united states probation the district court conducted a violation hearing the director of the residential  that mr lopez who said that this was all the result of a misunderstanding he didn't understand the documentation pertaining to and take but he wanted the opportunity now to go back to the residential reentr supervised release i think the district court did say dick try has tried time and again to give mr lopez opportunity out after opportunity with respect to additional time with respect to supervised release but for this particular sentence income in consultation with probation probation basically indicate that this is not an individual who will succeed on supervised release there needs to be consequences for this current violation is ition to well he's basically serving for the st violation which had to do with drug use while he was on supervised release and now this one for failing to comply with and happen here so the evidence here is sufficient to support the violation more to the extent that there was any error on the admission of the limited hearsay based on the caseworkers comments to my  would be held harmless finally doesn't like the air that what happened was a psychotic episode at the way it's just the record doesn't support it you know they had an opportunity to raise that at the violation hearing nothing was set up condition must be reasonably related to the section three thousand five hundred and fifty three a factors and also a sentence of course has to be sufficient but not greater than necessary so we know what we're dealing with here is a person with serious mental illness schizo schizophrenia we also know in this situation that when he was in the bureau of prisons and they knew that he had that mental condition he was medicated he stopped taking his medication while in prison he said the side effects were bad schizophrenia  alliterative psychotic and he's going to end up in jail again the problem and i see it is that is that you were complaining when probably every justification that this is a matter of mental health problem and kno relating it to the factors he has a history here what was the best or what sufficient was it what could the judge have done instead in a difficult situation might my submission here is that ordering he's still out our view is what must be mental health treatment and it's a multi disciplinary approach with schizophrenia the hope that they can stabilize him the hope that he gets put on a medication that he doesn't have enough side effects t extremely powerful depends on the reaction of an individual he was experience i think that side effects were causing him not to continue to take an mmog what the hope i would say and what certainly medical personnel would be trying to do is to find some sort of medication next together with the counseling socio psychological counseling to get him to take it so i think he is better off and he doesn't end up back in thank you thank you that then we will