we're happy to hear argument and our first case the united states first with for one thing in rejecting the pedophilia diagnosis the district court instead offered the idea there wouldn't be sexual misadventures and his past preferences for young boys resulted from a developmental delay of ten to fifteen years  the physical and emotional changes of being a teenager and young adult that was already a questionable explanation for waters that wouldn't behavior into his late twenty's and it really didn't explain wooden's misbehavior and sexual predilections in his late forty's and yet the district court failed to address it all that inconsistent furthermore the district court credited wooden's own self report that he was no longer attracted to young boys but by wooden's own admission that change in his upon those urges and indeed that was what this court emphasized when it reversed the district court in wouldn't want third the district court did not sufficiently address dr mallin next test where he explained that i d d which was the diagnosis that ultimately accepted here did not fit the pattern of wouldn't pass crimes id d is something that would make an individual more gullible i plea to be a victim and yet the kinds of crimes that wouldn't committed were crimes where he would l e a boy aggressively to a secluded location and then aggressively and forcibly engage in sexual offenses court should have addressed that and the district courts rejection of the pedophilia diagnosis was an error in this the our standard is what is our stand with it's clear air and we fully acknowledge that and that is why all that we are asking this court to do is to do the same thing that it did in would one which is to recognize that there is very substantial evidence that the district court how exactly how this phrase but the ability to overcome or the ability to change it seemed to me that the only way that someone would be able to prove that is to engage in counsel you know that one was that the analysis that the district court having gauged in was an incomplete analysis and it needed to account for various key inconsistency is in the record and that's all that we're asking the district court to do here but don't with dr winston now in the court seeming to there's an i agree with you that there's no you're not going to find anything in the district court's opinion where he says dr women said x and i reject that but nonetheless the district court seemed to think that there was a ten to fifteen year developmental delay that was not a particular aspect of the theory that dr wins meant had offered and it is a theory that the district court accepted and we think is very much in contravention of the evidence furthermore the district kordic said that it was accepting dr wins  m doctor pods testimony there were distinctions between the testimony dr pod even acknowledged that he would diagnose pedophilia but then he tried to retreat from that somewhat he was a little bit ambiguous doctor when been rejected pedophilia and said that he wouldn't even want to make sure the court really does get this is we are not here same that it would be impossible on this record or the district court to conclude that mr wooden should be released and we're not here saying that it would be impossible for and here we don't think the fact finding was sufficiently principled because there are these key really important pieces of evidence inconsistent with their reports analysis but that is your core needs to address and that's all that we're asking the court to do is to send it back so that the court can consider  was appropriate but we do think that that is something that is authorised in a section forty two forty two forty seven eight hearing and to the extent that the district court's opinion depended on the idea that upon release he was going to have district court probably believed that forty to forty seven each proceedings are shaped by four to forty eight each proceedings which is the position that the government takes in which is the position that we believe was implicit in this court opinion in mclaren which we've just filed a twenty eight day letter on i'm not sure where as we had the chance to see that yet but there i didn't read anything in the district court's opinion to say that it actually explicitly addressed and considered conditional release or honor i think in this case one of the difficulties is that it is unclear from the district court's opinion whether it's volitional control analysis  depends on the idea that he's going to have this treatment plan and he's going to live with his sister if it does depend on that then we think the release should have been condition wouldn't i'm here today on his behalf pro bono along with the office of the federal public defender which continues to represent him on the district court's factual findings are supported by abundant evidence in the record therefore the government has not error in this case first as to the finding that walter wouldn't suffers from intellectual developmental disorder and not a pair of the it is clear that the district court relied heavily on the testimony in his in his evaluation he has a number of sites to authorities in the back of his evaluation and also dr winston himself isn't already on specifically on the issue of pollution control is the only published expert in the area of pollution control as it relates to sex offenders and did the just record ever explain its earlier finding that w in its prior well there are a couple things that i i'd like to say about that and i don't want to get into trouble and i don't want to speak or the district court i think the district court speaks pretty well for itself but it appears that the district court wanted to release mr wouldn't initially and the district court follow the guidance of this court and committed him the district court did not find that he lacked  initially but it follow the guidance of the walt and commit it except that the guidance of this court and committed him and i think judge paul even stated that on the record but what is different about the i d d diagnosis is that for the first time someone actually has looked at more wall to wooden as a whole person and put his offending in context and that had not happened before we would can see that there were some things lacking in the testimony of dr campbell god rest his soul initially at the first case he's now deceased but those things are certainly not lacking here well i still wasn't sure what  specifically asked during cross examination of dr wins meant about so what is it are you saying that because he was mentally a five year old that he was out offending against five year old you know that that doesn't follow and what dr plod says is that because he is has the mental age of a five year old but he has basically urges a teenager that is what led to his you know i think wasn't it there's a big question about whether there was evidence that he was babysitting children mr wooden told his probation officer that he was babysitting but you have to understand when a person has i d d they try to make themselves look like they're doing something good and something important even when it actually undercuts what they're actually doing he so he's claiming that he's babysitting because he's trying to convince as a role officer that he is working that he's making money but not real credit that would suggest with respect to everything else absolutely and what i what i want when we create well what i want you to do is put his testimony in context of who he is and when i look at for example when you want to look at what it is that lets you know that mr wouldn't has the belt you look at what dr cheryl said she's the gov the government witness she testified that people with intellectual disabilities learn at a lower rate and that expectations are what the maximum benefit is of treatment for someone with mr williams disability she says they're not going to attain the same level of insight as one of us would obtain in treatment so the ceiling is lower for them once they display good social boundaries with their peers and with staff i mean that they're not touching people inappropriately they're showing some level of awareness that they did things that were on health in the past they've indicated they're not going to do these things anymore been used as an outpatient you don't interest treatment and having someone who treated you saying you are no longer dangerous is an indication that you are no longer dangers what's this reason for rejecting treatment that everybody was having seen especially with people who are sort of fight early on that there's a certain lack of trust among them and the folks who provide the treatment and our district court judges are aware of that that it's difficult for them to get past the hurdle of all of the things that have gone on before and getting them sort of by and betraying their trust and getting them to think that this program is now going to help them so i think the district doesn't weigh that as heavily against mr wouldn't in light of that situation and also mr wooden he's never he's never really what you have to understand about someone who's intellectually disabled is that their rationale for things is not going to be as simple or straightforward as yours or mine so i think it's fair to say your case rests on the diagnosis intellectual disability mr would you like yes i would say if his intellectual disability caused him to sexually abuse minors why isn't it something that would get  commitment on the animals and this court i believe in a number of cases is that and not so well it's just when the pedophilia took place i mean well i don't know i don't exactly i don't think i understand i'm sorry maybe i don't understand your question well you're saying it's a mental disability caused him to become a pedophilia so he was a pedophil would certainly wane over time so that's that's on the one hand but on the other i think that what the difference is that walter wo we ever have in these cases are the respondents assertions that he will no longer do this it's considered one of the critical things when assessing whether they receive the maximum benefit from treatment whether they have indicated a his forties but he was no longer offending and now he's sixty and he has absolutely no interest in offending and he has shown no interest in children is not sent no want a christmas card is actually only showing interest in adult women so i us he's saying both of those things your honor i would certainly ask the court to give credit to the district court who hears the testimony of all to understand  certainly want to wouldn't said some silly things on that phone call but those are not things that would suggest that he's going to go out in the in the well you just made the president honest if he said i'll be living with my sister and then  turns out that sister did not plan to have her know you're on that that that was never the plan was for him to live with this particular sister i think that when you talk about water when you've got to understand that he's mentally retarded that's where mr wooden falls woefully short he talks to malta wouldn't spam really to help him inform his his opinion and want to wouldn't sisters know him quite well and you can hear his sister saying yeah yeah right sure there's she knows he's not going to live with her this is these are the musings as doctor when one says these are the musings of a mentally retarded person so when walter wouldn't testifies in court he is doing his absolute best to tell the trial judge the truth we have his sister who has testified that she will allow him to live with her so now walter wouldn't then relax he does not have to say oh i'm going to get a job don't worry i'm going to get out i'm going to go to work it's it's it's just a sort of childlike thinking that i've got to show that i'm going to go out and get a job and so i can live with this sister and then when his his other sister shows up in court and actually sense no you can live with me my husband and i will take you in in so many of these cases there is not a single family member willing to even come to court let alone allow these people into their homes walk to wooden was afraid and his sister  and said yes you can live with us we will take care of everything you don't have to work we will take you to the doctor we will take you to get registered we will make sure that everything is fine and it is to quote rely on that the government is asking you to do is to simply credit the testimony of dr mounted over that of the other experts and that simply isn't appropriate dr melnick undermined his own credibility in so to the last i don't know three minutes of your argument where you were talking about stability that the record shows he's getting in this situation if he wasn't getting that stability you wouldn't have that argue well so he weren't he's not ordered to get that stability and in fact because he is according to himself mentally retarded and immaturity he might not go to the sister's house without that dr wins but also addressed this issue and he said that what you have with walk to work is a person who if anybody were going to be released and live under a bridge that would change  so it it's not simply that water wouldn't has this great release planned it's the thing that no matter what his circumstances no matter what his mental state if he were going to be released onto the street without any gives them the authority you do not do not think the act is that really gives them the authority and it's been the case that our probation officer has indicated they don't feel that they have the authority to supervise without some statutory basis or  whether or not conditional release is authorized in a forty two forty seven each proceeding i'd be happy to address that or any other questions of the court otherwise i think will rest on our briefs ok thank you very much we will come down and fill it lawyers and then go