thank you i may have placed the cart nicholas edwards is challenging three conditions of supervision he objected to each of the conditions of the trial level they all significantly restrained his liberty  particularly with no context provision and the no employment with access to minors provision and all three of these conditions are unwarranted under the facts of the case i'm going to focus on the latter two just because they're the most impactful and also the decision on them was the most problematic and they're grounded in the notion that it's a present elevated risk of some sort of sexual abuse of minors but he's never sexually abused a minor there are these two child pornography convictions for more than sixteen years ago with the actual offenses being even older than that but there's been nothing in the interim and it's not as if this is itself a child pornography case which has been the case in some of the precedent that both parties cited where either she's going to sentencing on child pornography now or she was sentenced on child pornography now just coming out of prison at this point we have many years of mr edwards living in the community and while he has not been ideally law abiding they have been in ways that are unrelated completely to the abuse of any minors and therefore these conditions significantly restrain his ability to interact with the public which includes minors in the normal way that we are all used to interacting is not appropriately tailored for this case he had continued sexual interest in children so there was the i think it was out of the minnesota sex offender treatment in around three thousand and fifteen sexual interest in children i think we can probably assume that anyone who's ever been convicted of a child pornography offense has a sexual interest in children and i'm not sure why not when the challenge has just ended with a prior conviction  interact with that sort of service individual humor and that is is truly the only exception that doesn't require permission is that sort of commercial interaction so interaction with somebody at a ballgame like in one of the courts cases with somebody who happens to be sitting next to him that would not be covered by the exception and certainly that was exactly judge peterson's reasoning that sort of a sexual interest in children plus just generally you know committing these these check writing crimes than other things that show him to be kind of not perfectly as law abiding person but again i think the sexual interest in children is going to be a factor of anyone who's ever cute convicted of child pornography offense and the question is do we then subject to a condition interfering with their liberty to this extent  for the rest of their lives and if not then what is the point at which we say it you know this person hasn't ever harmed a child in this way and this offense is very old and although she's not necessarily our ideal law abiding citizen because he's committing these various misdemeanor offenses he's not always registering he is he has internalized what he absolutely cannot do and that is possessed child pornography harm children anyway and so to the extent he has this enduring interest in children what we know is that he's never acted on it or least or certainly no evidence he's ever acted on it and he so there's no reason for us to believe he will act on it in the future particularly in a case like this where the main argument he was making at the district court level is concern about how the no contact provision would interfere with his relationship with his brother and sister in law and there's not even an exception for family although there's certainly nothing in his history or even in the nature of kind of noncompliance law breaking that would suggest any problem but the foundation officer has the discretion to permit that and to create exceptions cracked that's correct this gives the probation officer all the diprivan all the discretion in that regard and this court's cases although we do assume the probation officers act reasonably i think it's not necessarily we don't always agree on what it means to be reasonable and he is looking for assurance that he will be able to maintain his family relationships and i think the judge felt like you know that's not my call will leave that for the probation officer and i think if there's anything that this court's cases and conditions of supervised release has made it clear it's that it is the judge's call the judges should be making these calls at sentencing where there's something that's just not warranted by the facts of the case rather than simply leaving it up to the probation officer and leaving a person on supervision to wonder should i take this action or should i not take  know a lot well yes and it's always kind of it's always true that that conditions can be modified during a term of supervision so it is it is unusual among sentencing claims in that  regard but at the same time the decision that the judge makes at sentencing needs to be one that is narrowly tailored based on the facts of the case to promote rehabilitation and deterrence the cols of supervision court and these conditions were adequate adequately tailored and so they should be reviewed for abuse of discretion and as case law says the district court has significant discretion when fashioning conditions of supervisory use in a district court did look at deterrence rehabilitation and protection of the public based on not just mr edwards current conviction for the sort of violation but also his history and his personal characteristics which are what the court should be looking at this fight wants to cabaniss into looking at this is a sort of violation and so this is a peeper violation where you can register but that doesn't take into account the full picture of who mr edwards is and what the court should look for in judge peterson specifically said that he carefully considered all the factors and that his conditions of supervised release were not happen strictly to that which arises from the offense a conviction he looked at the fact that in two thousand and fifteen mr edwards was found to still be currently sexually attracted to children now misplay said that every defendant who is convicted of a child prior who fans would have a attraction to children over mr edwards is enduring in still in two thousand fifteen years saying he's sexually attracted to children he's turned on by the idea of adults having sexual relations with children that is something the court should take into consideration not merely because this is a peeper violation where he didn't register she lied he lied so much that the treatment for writers couldn't determine what was truth and what was not truth these are all things that judge peterson should be and did to take into consideration when he fashioned these conditions and saying that because he didn't have a hands on offense he's not a risk to minors also isn't taking into account the full picture it's true he does not have a hands on offense he does have a distribution of child pornography and the possession of child pornography but having hands on a child is not the only thing we need to protect the public from there are a lot of crimes in harm to minors that i can think of that have nothing to do with hands on possessing child pornography distributing child pornography is a harm that you want to protect the public from and it has nothing to do with hands on talking to children in inappropriate ways exposing them to inappropriate things those are things that you want to protect children from so to say that well he doesn't have a hands on so we don't have to worry about him harming the public just isn't taking into account the full picture of what what in front of the district court what was brought up in front of the district court is that they weren't tailored to his effects so the government argues that these shouldn't be considered but if they are the root review would be plain error which clear and obvious error and the things that mr edwards is is asserting are unclear and would cause him confusion are such simple words such as  must or commercial he's saying those words confuse him and he won't know what he's supposed to do in so they're unconstitutionally vague but if these words are vague then every word in every condition is vague if you don't know what must means i can't think of a more simple straightforward word so if this court has found probation is assumed to apply these conditions in a reasonable manner and conditions of supervised release are always assumed to exclude inadvertent in unintentional violations so trying to stretch and say well i don't know what must means in my probation officer is going to violate is not only a stretch of the word must but it's also not giving in not following the law as far as what probation is assumed to do and what they have to do drugs and also as this court noted judge peterson said you can come back at any point in talking about these conditions if you don't like the way they are being implemented and he said you know once you have some time under your belt where you have complied i will consider taking off some of these conditions that's how supervise release works you build up some trust you tell the truth you file your conditions and the and specifically said we'll consider modifying these conditions and so for the st argument the government asserts that there was no abuse of discretion the conditions were adequately tailored challenge convictions of supervised release thank you counsel thank past of the nd circuit has and that would alleviate some of the concerns fear for the future although not all of them and in terms of this waiver argument  this court in several cases has said that the narrow tailoring is about weaving big mess and over breath and it's sort of you know in terms of the language if commercial is not vague and literally means commercial then ok then food pantries are covered and everything is covered then we have an over breath problem with sort of and they're all wrapped up into the same concerns that were raised to the just or judge so it's not a waiver a  forfeiture it's just a different way of presenting the argument an appeal to try to match with this court was doing in the past although it does seem like it's moving in a different direction now but the bottom line is that these conditions that don't have a saints or element that don't have clear exceptions that cover things that we would want people on supervision to be doing it doesn't make sense for that to be in the conditions just a few other points i want to make one absolutely child pornography is a harm and  i would never say otherwise but there are numerous conditions that we did not challenge that go toward that harm the only harm that we're trying to deal with and having no contact with minors or no employment where you can have access to minors this is about sexual abuse of children and that's what there's just nothing here supporting and then i believe that my my friend said that there was something on the record about it she was turned on by adults having sex with children that goes farther than the record i believe all it says is that this report found that he had an enduring interest in children i think for better or worse there is increasing recognition in our society including from the supreme court that people's sexual interests are somewhat enduring but again the question as does that sexual so we are in recess