does a district court have authority to impose a special condition of supervised release as a rule in all cases the second one is a factual question is that with a district court judge here and the third one is the big question of whether we can meet all fo of playing error here so i'd like to just walk through those in order and i think the answer to the first question is easy no it district court may not simply decide that it's going to impose a special condition of release in all cases the statute in that thirty five eighty three subsection b is clear there are mandatory conditions of release and there are discretionary conditions of release discretionary conditions have to meet certain requirements those requirements are related to the individual defendant it's amazing how you got to just do this transition from one place to the other without even five mines a little less disciplined i guess maybe i like to focus i you can but the reason i think it's clear is that the court was stating i did this in all cases and meant that it's because there were several other conditions special conditions of release that the court walk through and make a specific findings on and so in the context of the full transcript it becomes clear that the court said in the first several i am imposing this because of this defendant's history in this because of as to each one of these and if in reading their overall even though he may have said in i do this in all cases the record supports granting the condition that he it was condensed to particular period of time he'd been clean for two years so there were others that just called a question was a little different than the way your concealing what you're arguing is that even though he by under the facts of this case for the imposition of that condition that would should not have been administered anyway in th convictions he had similar conditions imposed by what's in this case do you agree with that i i r do you know i can answer off the top of my head ok well i'm just telling you that is at least in condition is broader in includes his place of employment it doesn't house a nexus between the reasonable suspicion and the place to be searched and so again i want to kind of focus in again on that no greater than required court can turn a special condition into a mandatory condition i just wanted to especially refer the court to the thousand case because the court was pretty clear in that case that doing that is contrary to the condition had he made the findings also the third requirement is that be consistent with the sentencing commission policy statements which again recommend this condition for sex offenders which our client is not and so we argue as well  consistent with that policy statement especially since those findings were not named and i'll reserve my time unless there are other questions thank you it please the court to recap law for the government here the defendant cannot establish plain error there simply was no error the judge gave a generalized statement for the special condition of supervise release the search condition when he stated that it was necessary to ensure compliance and also for the probation officer safety and those three then are well founded in this record and this record have to be viewed in it report pointed out that was more than twice what was necessary to even fall into criminal history category six which is the highest level so the district court took into account very carefully and was very aware of the defendant's criminal history in considering the sentence and the special conditions here or the district court was also aware and made clear in the same discussion of the number of criminal history points that the defendant ha the district court said that that was pertinent to fashioning a sentence and that was a page sixty five of the sentencing transcript so the district court took into account criminal history when it imposing sentence and the special conditions good argument on third from i want to challenge a little bit on whether there was air plane or the statements that the judge made related to the sentence that it's entirety and the judge address a condition except to say as i always do and doesn't that tell us that the judge didn't know this clearly in his mind but in terms of imposing that condition he that tell you he didn't make a specific he didn't specifically consider the factors in this case you know i guess if god is a permissible reading of what the district court sa d i'm not sure that we can assume that he overrules tie the to verify compliance and probation officer safety with the search conditions here the records support that those two reasons are in fact justified and warranted based on his criminal history his inability to follow court rules and to see under supervision the p s r when it ran through his criminal history there were crime spree and so it would make sense that in order to deter the defendant from committing future crime he would want to search condition and he would want the probation officer to be able to go in there based upon reasonable suspicion  to ensure that the conditions of supervised release aren't being violated by this defendant and the district court here hasn't had reason to want that extra supervision and this report in discussing the thirty five fifty three a factors and discuss deterrence promoting respect for the last protecting the public and also this defendant's rehabilitation in that discuss prong three and the plain error analysis that if you look at the records that search condition is more than justified based on all the thirty five fifty three factors that come into play and it also  exactly greater deprivation of liberty than what is required the conditions here have to be based on reasonable suspicion so it's not a anytime you want it's reasonable suspicion and it also is limited in the this make your point so i understand that we had some difficulty showing that the court likely would not impose because nation although i argue that he would not impose it as broadly as he does the government has pointed to places in the record that might support the conditions but i think the government is asking this court to make the findings the statutorily required finding that the district court didn't make i think it needs to go back to the district