marijuana while on supervised release then you had a revocation hearing and at the revocation hearing the judge imposed a special condition that he u imposes a greater restriction the necessary and that there's no and there's no basis for it i don't think that there is any issue about indicate that when he was sentenced for the original federal offense in two thousand and four a sex offender treatment condition was imposed at that  time it wasn't objected to then while he was on after he finished that prison sentence was on supervised release he was required to take a polygraph to discuss his sexual thoughts and behaviors  he was unable to use social media to contact anyone he had to talk to his probation officer about his sexual conduct i may ask your cow so i proved that the defendant will have to submit to because of the condition just with wires let's say that we participate in mental health counseling which may include participation in a sex offender treatment program bicycled issue that you're objecting offender program and that and not as a result of any condition of survivor release as a highway sex offender he's required to register believe so your honor the only thing that i will all requires him to do is to register his far is taking a polygraph not use social media talk to his probation officer participate in the sex not survive provision does not and i would sell authorize or require any particular kinds of activities it just says which may include participation and a sex offender specify you have to take a polygraph you have to use social media you have to tell your probation officer about your sexual conduct it doesn't say any of that but these are things that he was required to do while this condition was in effect the first time around what we're trying to do is avoid that in the future going on a record i think that i read it indicated to me that maybe not maybe some of these things at least were regrettable  they seem to be some indication maybe even a finding by the district court in this in this matter that the appellant had never actually completed the original sex offender treatment before the twenty two weeks were up there was an application revoke you supervision completed three of twenty two weeks right so later that sounds about right your honor subtle isn't that in  that the fact that what had originally been ordered if not in fact been completed the way home presenting this is it should have been objected to in the first place  wasn't now what is being objected to and so we're not conceding that he should've ever been required to undergo sex offender treatment certainly not now because there's no evidence of propensity there's never been any evidence of propensity other than a single conviction when the guy was fifteen years old so whether or not he completed the program the argument sex offense occurred when he was fifteen years old in one thousand nine hundred seventy he's never been he was arrested once for not registering as a sex offender but that nine he then failed to register as a sex offender in two thousand and three and in two thousand and four before his underlying federal drug conviction that's a factor of point he then served his sentence on the drug conviction and when he comes out is the defendant had his revocation hearing before the district court after the multiple uses of marijuana he did object to that last sentence of that condition that part about which may include participation in a sex offender treatment program and so  when the courts evaluating whether that conditions recently related to the goals of sentencing that's the language that we're discussing and the district court did expressly consider whether that language was appropriate the record reflect that before making that decision the district court took evidence to testimony from the probation officer who was supervising mr lincoln and the probation officer walked through the process and discussed the twenty two people two week where that mental health professional determined that he was at a low to moderate risk of reoffense the mental health professional identified bases for that decision the district court noted  nothing in this order that requires a good new rx y m c a that's right your honor that the order i have x y and z occur in the future it could come back and ask for modification that's that's correct your i don't know how we regarding the x y and z the court did take some testimony about that specifically about whether the defendant ought to be allowed to social media which is one of the things that mr meyer brought up what the probation officer testif is that because the defendant is required to register as a sex offender by virtue of the state of illinois conviction when residing in iowa that sites such as facebook don't permit registered sex offenders to use the website the  about that treatment program that after he was deemed to be at a low and moderate risk to re offend that's when the probation office and will mr lincoln in that twenty two week program and that program is not exclusively a