right our second case for this morning is united states again condition a six pack a box ready currently on the form which probably should be modified to form itself in the box that says jurisdiction the commission says federal judicial district which the clarification there are things that have to be done on this part of the order and changing their form i think would be very wise but they seem to be locked into it and as much as we come up and complain about it we continue to make the same complaints because the changes being actually it's almost worse than that because  guns has caused devastation throughout our communities particularly here in chicago and then there's another part that he says hardly a day goes by where you don't leave something out the problem here though is that this is not a gun violence case so it is violence and doesn't participate in any gun violence i think that's improper as if we were asked to be credited for something like an economic boom is not neighborhood for something that he had no part of the press to ask that and i don't think they can be fairly punished  imposing sentence it seems even if you didn't use the word blame that is blaming why wouldn't the comment about the problems that illegal possession of guns in chicago be directly relevant in a have to consider among other factors general deterrence so why wouldn't a comment about it i don't think you would dispute the illegal possession of firearms in chicago is part of  if you haven't done anything yet but one of the reasons congress has twenty two they don't want people who seem to be high risk having guns yes i risk in the response by police and so forth when people have guns do to chicago's gun violence well as the court pointed out here the defendant was in and who is a convicted felon and after being on parole for any violent felony offense aggravated robbery which you know i will dispute is a crime of violence and supported that the poor at the outset state it before it even began discussing anything about the chicago gun violence problem that well what concerns me about this case is not only the repeated criminal history in your background but also the fact that when you did get out you were on parole and even though you were on parole it's clear and you knew you shouldn't have a gun and yet there you were violating the terms of parole those were the initial remarks made by the district court and after making those remarks the court in fact took a brief recess and then and i took the bench again and it was at that point the court had been convicted on twelve separate occasions bank he had criminal history points of twenty that placed him in the category of criminal history category of suspects and the court date continued to state how it was troubled by the fact that the on the defendant's lengthy criminal history as well violation and how consequential sentence needed to be imposed to do here at that time that in the future let me ask you about the condition of supervised release is there any reason why this court shouldn't order the judgment to be corrected to conform justice from sentence to the word judicial of the words judicial district obviously the people downstream controls and it's clear based on her view of the record that this court that judge lee so the time to explain what the term jurisdiction meant he said that in the federal district where the district court diverged and we know which one controls but why isn't it appropriate when the defendant raises the point to make the written sentence conform to the oral pronouncement that would be a routine court could make that correction or to remand with instructions which has been done in other cases the hudson case the johnson case and order the court to substitute jurisdiction for a federal judicial district that would be necessary part of this term should we take that next step should mean you really don't know most people most normal people at least don't as they crossed the border from you know cook county into the or maybe you know lake county into it was kind of maybe that's a that's an international boundary but international interstate boundary but they're not conscious of leaving the northern district of illinois and entering the central district of illinois it's something that maybe you don't even think about if you're driving south to springfield so why not put scienter requirement in their wh where this court has ruled that the financial requirement is more appropriate is in situations where a defendant lives on the boundary of two different districts in the court is aware that information here there was no reason for the court to even consider adding the science or requirement because the defendant is a lifelong resident on the west side of chicago and there was no indication that he frequently traveled or lived near boundary line and so for those reasons it was not imposed here and we believe that it would not be necessary to be imposed you're just guessing he's not going to make a mistake so again the government is not arguing day it would not benefit of the hul courts to just implement this general language in the orders but the question and the primary question here is come into court and say we live in this county we drive this far we may go to this the condition speaks for itself about what the commission thinks needs to be there act it's amazing to me that the state of illinois finds it to be manageable that people can travel wherever they want to within the state but federally we are locking people into the it ministry of contracts of the judicial district special judicial district it makes no sense i think it impinges on liberty interest but that would be it for a different day as far has to do it also supervision it dies but we as probation oxys meet the probation officers that are as capable in the federal system is in the state system and they should be able to manage people where they travel throughout the state as a minimum