participate in a drug treatment program and she was ordered to participate in a mental health evaluation particularly with respect to gambling and anger management issues so the question presented say two classes of special conditions if there raffle to to have either a mandatory or standard conditions preprinted on a judgment form well known to everybody then they're not going to  struck if they are simply articulating a basic administrator of matters relating to the administration of supervised release such a report within seventy two hours after conflict between the written and oral pronouncement and the court denied her motion to reconsider so i don't believe it was waived there is a second issue here i'm watching the time so i'm going to make mention of it and take any question conviction this issue was clearly controlled by reference to the mandatory victim restitution act eighteen u s c three six six three any which says that restitution cannot be imposed for  allow outside of the court have no statutory authority to impose that so they may have been mistaken as to the governing law but i don't think you can say that where this issue is decided by reference to law allow was waived by the defendant there is an with regard to the two issues that are before the court i think we brief them very well and the up to three questions i do want to emphasize a couple points first of all we are taking a new step forward just in the new step be taken by this court with regard to the issue of the conditions of supervised released but that is only a very small step and overt logical step following from already the decisions that have been made by this court particularly the one cited  defense which is lopez and lopez thought it was that there was a condition a special condition of supervised release for the same as the second one in this case which was for mental this was a quote routine condition and that all defendants or already alerted to it because of the fact that the record had some factual support for that kind of a condition and primarily that this was a listed recommended condition within the guidelines recommended conditions under five the one point the five whatever that section is  it's particularly it's five one point three zero d those are of the special conditions that are considered that are recommended by the costs this is your position to serve the person back and not using drugs he was on notice by virtue of not only that conviction but the series of events underlying that conviction and following it the pre sentence report points separately each one of them is death but on this record the corps did not abuse this discretion in taking precautionary steps are there any other indications that this new theory was using drugs other than  admitted that he was selling to support his wife's habit and i think that the district court would have been perhaps somewhat unrealistic if it took that completely at face value but he was trying to support his wife's habit not his his wife's and when you put it together with everything that's in the picture we would have to find that it was an abuse of discretion i would say certainly the court has to have some leeway and deciding whether there's no question about the better practice is to say to open court i'll have a problem with us question is whether it's permissible to do that the other way the only difference between what happened in focus and what happened here so far as in the m purposes those two issues really get that in a sense in context where the defendant didn't have to face criminal liability for that stand for those two counts rather than litigating and in front of the purity on whether he was criminally liable as well that was the fork and it was made you give it we gave the government gave up this holding the defendant criminally liable for those two counts and the defense says all right well them will litigate everything that would have been l napier contends that the phones and counts one and two which are now included as relevant come to her were used for the intended purpose and therefore should not be contained in the last amount for the rest of them out as the the only theory they were brought up if your page two hundred thirty three of the excerpts of record again the defendant says the same thing the government got the benefit of its bargain on comes one and two and therefore it the last was there should not confidentiality in the course of that treatment relationship and so that was specifically discussed an objection may heard decided and so i think  has this court effectively found that an opportunity and in fact been provided to the defendant although there was also the statement that for instance not apply that's not the circumstance clearly presented here there was no notice there was no opportunity there been using drugs because he acted funny and staying out late acted strange at work and he had been staying out late it made him wonder and that is the nature of the speculative evidence upon which the court apparently relied post was agreed by the defense with the prosecution to let you know that the quality on the first transaction could come in the requirement that the defendant take on the burden of restitution with respect to those two counts so there certainly is nothing explicit and i would argue not even implied in the record that he was affirmatively agreeing to take it on of course i would concede that