excuse me i am are back occurs arguing on behalf of mr eric when this morning my client mr quinn is currently serving a three year period of supervised release which will end in september of two thousand and twenty he challenges  district court's imposition of a supervisor lee's condition requiring him to disclose a juvenile adjudication for sexual misconduct in the first degree to any current or future significant others who have juvenile children the sexual misconduct occurred in two thousand and one when he was age fourteen and he exposed himself to his four year old sister so essentially indecent exposure was the offense and those are the only facts we really have about what happened mr quinn contends that the condition does not reasonably related to the person at thirty five fifty three sentencing  notification condition later the probation officer approached the district court she wrote a memorandum for the court saying that she wanted to order mr quinn to disclose this sexual misconduct  we have this is somehow a final order that we have jurisdiction to review well i don't have any cases where you that it's a final order i believe that it is i think you can challenge  essentially part of his the second part of his claim is that this is overbroad and that it may and if at the time of sentencing where the the language was as directed by the probation officer defendant shall notify third party of arrest that may be associated with his criminal conduct so it's very general it's very veg and at that point in time he hasn't been directed by his probation officer to do anything he hasn't been instructed you need to tell this person this bit about your history and your criminal conduct the only way that you could have challenge that can condition i believe is to say that it was constitutionally overbroad or they on it's face and i do have a case for you regarding that it's united states versus thomas one ninety eight a third one zero six three it's an eight circuit case in one thousand nine hundred nine in that case the defendant tried to raise a vagueness challenge to a condition of supervised release and the court said it's not ripe at this time and you haven't been directed by your probation officer to do anything i'm not going to address that issue until something actually happens and so that we'll know the facts behind it so i think i think the rightness issue and thomas addresses that concern your honor now as far as the reasonable relationship between the condition and the sentencing factors there's really no need for the deterrence in this case the behavior occurred in two thousand and one and was never repeated in the past in the ensuing years that followed there is no reasonable relationship to the need to protect the public there is no evidence there is no finding of fact that mr quinn is is or ever has been a danger to children it was a single incident again never repeated there's no existing findings concerning a risk assessment tool i think like  static ninety nine test is something that is used sometimes to assess persons sex offender traits nothing of that nature or it is not an offense that even requires registration under sora under missouri law this is  purposes it does not concern mr quinn's need for treatment medical treatment or educational needs the government says that the hole in our argument is that this court must consider the entire criminal record all of his past conduct in assessing whether the condition is valid i want to point the court to a place in the record in the district court's order imposing this condition it says for good and sufficient cause as shown by the us probation office in its memorandum of january tenth two thousand and eighteen it is hereby ordered and then it goes on to state the condition so the district court convictions the sexual misconduct conviction and then two misdemeanor domestic assault it does not refer in just general terms to the pre sentence investigation report and it doesn't refer to any other convictions other than those that i just stated if you look at the state third paragraph on the first page last sentence the offender has advised his girlfriend and the probation office has confirmed that he had informed her about his prior history of domestic by the domestic assaults which which may raise a question of could there be physical harm to a third party misconduct adjudication when he was a juvenile there is no reference to any other past criminal behavior so in my opinion i don't think that's what the district court was doing she was looking at the entirety of his criminal conduct if you do look at his criminal contacts conduct as a whole you will see that he has for the for the most part between years two thousand and one two thousand and thirteen other than when he was serving his sentence for the felon in possession charge of that is the subject of this case he was out living in the community he has i believe he did six months in two thousand and six twenty days of custody in two thousand and seven eleven months in two thousand and nine ninety days in two thousand and eleven those were the longest periods or maybe a few other where he served a matter of days like in municipal for municipal court but for the most part he has been out in the community so that means he has had the opportunity to re offend and has not done so this is not someone who committed a forcible rape was in prison for ten years and then got out and had a condition imposed upon him where you have no track record as to prior criminal sexual history oh i see other men to my rebuttal time i'd like to reserve if no further questions in the least restrictive way possible it forwards the interest in a thirty five fifty three when you compare the restriction here with other restrictions of this court is approved this is a very minimal restriction this court has approved restrictions for example in the in the stomach or case that required that the defendant have no contact with his own money children they have in the case they require that the defendant to get treatment and to pay for it and there are similar cases with much more restrictive and draconian types of conditions that this court has upheld i think the judge here was trying to address the issue and the potential risk to third parties in a way that was as it would in the least intrusive way possible so again as noted this meets the thirty five fifty three factors for many reasons it deters criminal conduct and protect the public i think the key fact in this case is the criminal record of this defendant in between the time of the offense which was a juvenile offense and the time that the judge was faced with the but as soon as becoming an adult this defendant had pretty much an unbroken chain of criminality he has many many convictions both felony and misdemeanor but i think of most importance to the court where the convictions for assault at age nineteen and then there's another conviction later for disorderly conduct all of which involved female victims and which involved either in in two cases violence against a particular female victim and in the third case threat to another field i think on this record the district court was entitle to find that there was a continuing concern in vitality in terms of arrest to third parties from the from the juvenile g cation for sexual likely to commit again i think if all we had was him being at say approximately this age at the time that probation makes this request and no intervening significant criminal history i  think would be a different case however i think there is a significant i mean a tremendous amount of criminal history and specifically assault of conduct against women and i think that is the bellwether here the key and i would also address your question by saying that the judge again i go back to my initial point the the judge saw that there were or believe that there was a zone of risk but the judge the judge addressed that issue in the least restrictive way possible the judge required not not him personally probation at on his notification to tell a significant other with minor children about the about the prior conviction and i think the judge made a very rational decision that those are those are the types of people who would be within squarely within the zone of risk the judge did not require him to you know i don't believe she could have required him to to to register for so on so that's off the table but but certainly in some kinds of cases i know there's a case that was argued in november you know sex offenders might be might be ordered not to congregate not to go where minors congregate for example that's a that's a fairly standard provision so so those broader provisions were not put into place here i think the judge was looking at that issue from the perspective of what can i do to to address the zone of risk in a way that makes sense given the facts of this case and i think she did so in a very rational way do you think that the order that's in question here is more restrictive on the appellant then this special condition thirteen in the judgment in commitment order at so you'll have to remind me which which well that's the one that says as directed by the probation officer the defendant should notify third parties of risks all the may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record  it is less restrictive in the sense that it is the less it is it isn't much more narrow it is more narrowly tailored to a specific issue and so i think the other one is obviously broader in potential application especially given that the the domestic abuse the the the assaults go why doesn't this why isn't this the existence of this special condition which was agreed to and was in place why doesn't it cover this what the probation officer wanted to do here it may well your honor at i can't answer for probation why they went to the judge and asked for more specific but that's not true but that's not the position that the united states has taken in the briefing in the case well i i think the difference would be that their probation officer wanted to have a specific mechanism in place to address out how to address this issue how to go forward with a no i guess the question not to get down to my real question sure i want to know if the government is is declining to assert that this case is resolved by the existence of special condition thirteen is that something you're not arguing in that we should just ignore the special condition thirty and it the issue is not one that i had thought of as you may know i did not i was not the author of the brief although i thought it was very well written by my colleague we have not interpose that issue obviously so i think i'm not sure on that feed into my jurisdictional question yes which is why if we had special condition thirteen at the time of sentencing being one of the probably the leading cases there is an interesting case it's actually an unpublished district court opinion called united states versus white or l i t r to two thousand westlaw four five five one two one question judgment or not on this issue that it would not be appealable yes that's a conglomerate well essentially that it was not addressable that should have been addressed it's a little bit different context but the notion that it should have been addressed at the time that the condition was first  based upon are the current conditions of the kind that would have prompted the officer to develop this vision well i think i think it was based on condition thirteen the notion that it was a subset of condition thirteen and i would agree with that that it essential a a special a specialized request within the context of the existing condition i think occasioned by the probation officer becoming aware of him having a relationship with a person with minor children and to address the last question asked by judge wallman what prompted it was that mr quinn went to his probation officer and said i would like to move in with this woman and then she then prepared the memorandum on january tenth of two thousand and eighteen both parties brief the issue but there was no hearing or oral argument on it again opposing counsel refers to the domestic violence assaults at age nineteen those had already been disclosed that stated in the memorandum that he had already told his girlfriend about those two incidents so that's not the impetus behind the condition of release but what it was most striking about his prior criminal conduct is his addiction to controlled substances if this man is going to re offend and it's probably going to be a controlled substance offense it's not going to have anything to do with sexual misconduct or indecent exposure that has not occurred in the past eighteen years it was only in two thousand and one it was an isolated incident and the district court the judge who handled the original sentencing recognized that fact and he imposed special conditions about getting substance abuse counseling mental health treatment would say well what's the big deal to think deal to him he really did not want that is embarrassing he does not want to have to disclose that and luckily she stuck with him  to me there's only so far a government should be able to interpose itself into your personal relationships with especially intimate personal relationships such as this set against that of the  case but i'm sure in your practice and all prosecutors of see this in defense attorneys i'm not saying that mr quinn is one of these boys from girlfriend to girlfriend they don't know anything about this person best behavior until a person commits something i think judge of all is right if you're going to have the benefit of counseling you've got to talk to your counselor it's only way it's going to work i would only note that the memorandum was prepared in january of two thousand and eighteen i know we briefed the issue a few months prior to that i believe so he stuck with are these try and thank you very well counsel we appreciate your arguments today the case will be submitted and