to do that the written judgment failed to allow for that to occur it needs to be amended and we shouldn't have him tagged go back to ask for maybe a modification the oral pronouncement judgment control language were in taif the point zero eight blood alcohol content and that was just a transcription problem then a clerical error that was not the box was checked in the written judgment that's not what happened the judge didn't adopt any definition and i'm not sure sure why anybody should document zero eight which is the functional limitation for alcohol consumption for operating a motor vehicle for somebody does a right to drink alcohol in the privacy of their own home and somebody has that point zero nine i don't know how that interferes with your ability to conduct yourself on supervised release supervised release the evidence based supposed to be efficacious that we're just imposing a condition because it's convenient to come up with a limitation point zero eight that's improper because it needs to be tied to the are arbitrary it could be important over seven it could be point zero nine yes what's wrong with point always at least it has the benefit of being a definition taken from another serious the conditions and then didn't do it right that's clear but normally if you want to say it should have been point ten rather than point eight that's something for the defense lawyer to argue in the judge can  it we don't have such a request i don't recall particularly from smith if the proposed condition in that language was adopted from the p s r by the judge and i'm less certain that it actually happened here in that fashion but i do know ultimately is that this way for the reasons being that the defendant did not object in the sentence and then also you know you could argue waiver that the lawyer says all the things recommended by the p s are fine with me except for the you're not right what your brief says is what you're now saying use this term should be left without a definition and the defendant should be left to guess they didn't agree to gas he agreed to the p s r that is not the that there is nothing in the record indicating that the district court what is rejecting the probation officers definition and that this court is able to amend their judgment to the heart of the matter here you are even when this is reviewed for air it remains that based on the record the district court did not indicate that it was rejecting the definition of with regard to the jurist as it is it was early orally pronounced and stated in the written judgment here there is no catholic between what the court stated a the reading judgment indiana i'm not really sure what the district idea but indiana and the northern district of illinois he has close family ties here as well and the district where specifically states that he would be granted permission for professional or family reasons to travel district where his wife resides as well she didn't say i will later grant permission she says she will include the northern district of indiana in the place where he wants to step in and she didn't i'm just now where the defendant may be living whether he may be leery whether they will reside in different places which is actually in cash into the record where he had previously been a supervisor or preach out at least in indiana where he supervision if my client's wife is in indiana presently she was to wisconsin the future if she goes to california by the time he's released from prison plans are still married that's where his marital interests are and that's where his rights  that point the district court said if you have professional or personal reasons to travel outside of this jurisdiction if you would allow that now at the time saying the wife was in the northern just into the indiana but the condition has to be understood that will allow my client to go wherever she is or wherever those business interests might be as well the condition can easily by simply including the language from the orally pronounce condition that's all that we're asking happen here that solves the problem it's not  cost of rescue or excuse me of a remain and versus the rights that may be at stake that circumstance here we have somebody is going to be under this condition for a long time and under other conditions for a long time it would be appropriate to remain for re sentencing so that consistent