lou a ban on using computers the internet and social media and it did so without any explanation twice in the past year and united states versus ross and united states vs rogue leskie this court is  similar bans when the district court failed to explain those cases made clear that when it imposes these special conditions of supervised release the district court has to make an individualized assessment which includes whether the conditions involve no greater deprivation of liberty that is reasonably necessary to serve the permissible sentencing purposes of supervised release conditions and ross the court made the same type of general statement that the court made here when it impose these conditions and that was plain error here the court merely told mr macmiller that he was being placed on supervised release for a wife and that he s comply with the standard conditions of supervised release and the standard sex offender conditions of supervised release as and ross that statement doesn't allow this court to determine the rationale for imposing these very serious conditions for life isn't there a difference with ross and that in the ross decision i think the court said and there was no explanation not a sufficient explanation for the sentence at all  but here we have think of model explain nation of thirty five factors and all the reasons for the sentence and we have cases saying that we can read it and explanation to apply to the it's important to note that the big failure to explain problem with the science of imprisonment eros was the fact that the court didn't respond to the defendant's arguments in mitigation and yes we don't have that there but the court did give an explanation for that senate and wrong and when it looked at the explanation for the conditions of surprise release it did not refer back to the senate saying explanation given for a term of imprisonment when it when it was considered an explanation for the supervised release conditions and then i pointed out to the court in a twenty eight dollars day letter that the court did the same thing in that it cost a case more i believe that's a little bit more recent where it only looked at the explanation given for the supervise release conditions and i think the other question refers to the published decision of holly where this court said the explanation for the sentence of imprisonment was sufficient to explain the supervised release conditions but st of all that's an unpublished decision of the proceeds ross but also that was a different situation because it was not a severe condition of supervised release like this one it didn't  constitutional rights and it was a mental health treatment condition those also recommended by the sentencing guidelines and the court make findings that may clear that it was consistent with the sentencing guidelines to impose objection to the conditions raised in the district court or was it was just the length of supervised release it was just the length of the prison term and the length i guess there was i correct myself there was a discussion about his request for explain why each special condition applies but i do think that when you're talking about a condition that severely restricts a constitutional right like the st amendment that then it is incumbent upon for to explain it and furthermore even if you look at the explanation that was given in this case that explanation doesn't address one of the most important considerations in imposing condition of supervised release especially when we're talking about off for stripping someone's st amendment rights and that i whether it's involves no greater decoration of liberty than reasonably necessary and that that is a critical consideration here and more than likely if the court had been required to go through that analysis in this case it would have tailored so that's my argument but i think that this particular this particular condition does require more explanation and we do believe that it's one nation is insufficient under either abuse of discretion or plain error analysis and even though we believe that the court should behave on that ground we're asking that or to go ahead and instruct district courts about how to deal with this particular condition because we're seeing it over and over even that the western district has for these cases but how do we even get there if the sentences procedurally and recent well i think you can get there by instructing the district court how to handle this no individualized explanation for this very serious imposition or restriction of the right and celebrity send it back to the court to explain i think that's true but i think that it would be very helpful that for the court for this court to instruct the courts about what exactly they have to explain for instance i think it would be very helpful for her to be in a published decision explaining to courts that the rule says ok you got explain but it didn't stop cabinet says this is how you do it it really puts the public what kind of position oh we've got to think of all the ways you can do it and the may be a lot of ways it can be done maybe a lot of reasons that might fit within it and then maybe you live it and then you would be we sit back and say here's how you do exactly how you do it  release conditions that it that the condition involved have greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary and i think that if the court instructs district courts that they have to specifically address that particular consideration that that would be very helpful and causing courts to tailor these restrictions and maybe you don't have to appear in this issue of her and because that is the course obviously are not doing that when they're imposing these complete bans on internet computer  assuming that the term not indigent allows a court to consider future earning capacity undisputed evidence and this record demonstrated that mr miller will continue to be indigent after is released from prison because even if the feel that he that is lawyer pointed out was that he could be a truck driver but even taking that into consideration st of all this computer and internet ban and even truck drivers have to use computers in their job but even aside from that if he's able to work as a trucker his income still isn't likely to overcome our of indigence because because that is a relatively low paying job about thirty thousand dollars a year in the county where he  and that is just barely over a living wage that doesn't even take his death service with that evidence before the district court who makes how much a truck driver makes and what kind is for the poverty line or whatever the stats are you try and i know it's just information that's other words if the sentences defective and has to be vacated do we then pass judgement on the findings well i think you can because the only argument about procedural procedure all reasonableness that we're making h related to the conditions ok so what if what if we disagree with you on the fine ok and say that in conjunction with the three of your circuits that have considered this issue we agreed that this is not an abus discretion then we have affirmed part of the sentence but reversed part of the sentence and is in fact that procreative i've never heard of a sentence i've heard of a judgement being affirmed length with the fans council about what might be helpful to the district court i want to start by saying i think the thing that would help just recorded more than anything else would have been an objection from the defendant specifically explanation for the sentence this court is held and a bunch of other courts have held that i don't think there's any court that's gone the other way and said you have to specifically explain part one of the sentence and then say i'm turning part two of the sentence restitution in for a surprise at least what what  is not is in we're blue city and across there's nothing in those cases that indicates any computer reviews in fact for lucy makes that specific there's no indication that nd is yes often times people do use these technologies determination and he did in this case where how does what the district court said pertain to a life time ban i understand your point these are terrible cases and and yes a period of time it might be appropriate to ban  i think is defendants people convicted of these crimes but what about the district court statement goes to the lifetime ban which is something pretty extreme don't we have to be able to glean something from what the district court said that goes to the lifetime understand computers are used the opportunity for proliferation of this kind of heinous information no question so the court didn't address that like time ban there's nothing here it's a quota so i don't understand how you can get beyond that in this case well your honor i had a couple points st the defendant although they asked for a lower time while in the district court has not that in this court nd the district court did address that in two specific ways st it included the probation officer's approval and nd when the defendant asked specifically after he proposed the sentence you know i'm fully aware of these conditions and i know they can be somewhat harsh the specific relief counsel requested was can you give the probation officer discretion to modify them in the co discretion by any the use of the internet you know it sounds to me you're saying something pretty close to that no your honor but you do have to there are some things that the supreme court has explained mitigate  permit a very brief discussion one of those is where the defense court addresses all the defendant's arguments here is conceded the defendant the court did another is when the condition is or the sentence is indorsed by the sentencing commission here a life time provision is specifically a lifetime provision limiting access to computers and information exchange because those were used in the effects so it is a circumstance where the very poor fit in this situation the court has an obligation to explain its sense and here to chess relied on a score order which by definition is not particularize to any individual  defendant and that's the court's stuti it doesn't matter if the defendant says not i think the courthouse still explaining it said yes i agree that the court has to explain its sentence but the explanation of the sentence is  supreme court said a thing for time that shows mayes is one that reveals that his addressed or discussed the diff the arguments made by the defense and or the parties so you're  lengthy if the argument is that the defendant specifically acquiesced to asked for a supervised release sentence of ten years told the court that it was familiar with the conditions attached to such offenders so it the defendant knew he was asking for that condition when he said ten years didn't ask the court to take that out of ten say it was over it's very closely connected well that you didn't notice how did he know why he was getting like time well your honor because the court explained that it needed a significant deterrent sounds to prevent him from going on and actively on a social media website and actively promoting or serving child pornography and amassing this collection of aunt's things he knows he's subject to those conditions to protect the public and to deter him from doing it in the future and how much is something else which a lot of these cases overlook which is that th to do it does sound like it would be easy in this case relatively speaking that point is easy as a little what makes it what makes it difficult your honor is that it's routine for district courts to impose conditions of supervised release it is not at all routine for district cour it to why i'm doing this to you for a life time is that difficult you're i believe i honestly perhaps we're not disagree because i think that my comment is that i think that might be the standard already the standard has to give the defendant the ex the court as part of this question and what the statement is whether it goes through each one or whether it's one broad statement but it does have to give the defendant notice and some information why he's going to be on it edition and a particularly severe condition think there can be circumstances where one overarching explanation can cover even particularly significant or severe conditions and there is sort of standard that we are green but the point i'm making is why not take on the circumstances and it does depend on what the parties say and i think the standing order practice i know defense counsel's criticized it here but what it does is it gives the defense it gives the defense great britain on notice and allows them the opportunity months in advance of from having a bunch of these cases appear if i simply say to the trial does it just give the explanation well you're right if to the extent the court is saying that it would be appropriate to make the court say this explanation that you're going to see significantly more litigation only about whether the court used the right or the play phrase about whether it's really a constitutional issue about how important a constitutional right is if it's lifetime what if it's ten years twenty years thirty years what's going to implicate that and how language needs to change for each one and that's quite a courts have to explain their sentence with regard to that particular individual yes and have to explain supervised rel case why aren't they owed that explanation i just don't understand when prosecutors and i don't want to give a speech but i don't understand prosecutors are resisting just an explanation because these are horrible cases but even people who have done horrible things are right to know why their freedom is being restricted you are if i have come across as resisting that i am i miss my fault i miss the defendant that no matter what they're charged with and where i think perhaps we disagree is i think the court did that in this case i think the court made that very clear and i think mr miller in the process came heard that explanation which i think pornography offenses in this case not a that's not true in every case but in this case and that's why faces and you see my times there's sort of that i'm sorry i apologize for not asking for permission to go over  the fundamental point that the government's argument is missing is that we're to tell a person why they're facing this extremely restrictive condition for a lie the court needs to explain why less restrictive alternatives are not  that is that the key problem here and i think that our mouths and broke both make clear and last as well that that has to be part of the explanation when severe condition of supervised release imposed as these are and i don't that's part of the consideration that is required under the statute and under robel you ski and underarm well in order to explain why a person is subject to these particular conditions for a life and i'm not saying that that's required in every case because in some cases for instance mental health treatment i mean that really there's nothing less intrusive that you can apply actually but they're right and there are examples in this case of you know the type of thing that there would be a lesser entry intrusion and they're already imposed in this in this case using monitoring software warrantless searches and already prohibiting any kind of computer contact with minors  contact with minors at all you know those are the type of less intrusive conditions that it could work in the run of the mill case like this so that's what i'm asking the court to do is to send it back to be specific with the instructions telling the court that this in fact this condition and three thousand five hundred and eighty three this requirement is something that the courthouse to specifically consider when it's explaining why the person is subjected to these very restrictive conditions for