release that it did not worley pronounce but included in the written judgment i think there's two questions that i focused the court's attention on in this case one is the question of notice and one is the question of whether or not there's a meaningful conditions of supervised release were included in the p s r so the attorney had the p s r he had the recommended conditions that he could have objected to had he wanted to the court and hudson however found that that in of itself wasn't enough that he also had to have a meaningful opportunity to be able to object to any supervised condition release condition that was imposed by the court the difference the main difference between hudson and rebus a straw that is that in hudson the district court did not make any reference to the special conditions of supervised release i court judge specifically stated that he was about are not on the p s aren't did the judge disregard your honor that the judge did not make any findings in regards to the special conditions that were contained in the p s r the very end of the t s r which were merely recommendations what the court did america except for these three conditions of release did the judge in the record he states that he is adopting the factual findings the clarifications any clarifications that were made his adopting the guideline calculation that's it it's really what's contained in what we would normally call the p s r the reason i point that out to the court is that for instance in different districts in the northern district the p s r doesn't contain special conditions of supervised release it doesn't  what portion of the p s r was not referred to when he said that and that the frame he was not referring and did not refer to any of the special conditions of supervised release in the p s are gon he did not refer to the supervised release conditions and they are not included in any of the price other categories that he did list that's correct so that's the part that was not specifically adopted that's correct  he goes into the period of supervised release and imposes the term the surprise release the only passing thing that he says is in addition you shall comply with the mandatory and special conditions that have been adopted  and set forth in your precess report and he makes special reference to the one i don't know in the document that the defendant would be most concerned and that it was he will be sent back and deported upon the complet the three conditions as i understand it were in the p s r so i mean he knew he had read it he knew what it was he had an opportunity and then he asked if you got anything further to say and he says no nothing further to say he had read the p s r he knew everything about it at least as far as records and he chose to say nothing he certainly had the opportunity it seems to me to challenge those three terms of ship around at least if you had a problem with it i think my argument to that your honor would be in hudson the same scenario you had the p s r was what the special conditions were were there he had an  opportunity if he wanted to jacked up to those but he didn't and then the fact that the court didn't ever did not ever allude to them then the question was was there a meaningful opportunity of jack and i are going to the court would be and maybe give you a hypothetical in one sense is that again supervised release conditions are not always included and p s r is not a mandatory insert in the p s r based on statute p s r is that basically covered the factual background the guideline calculation if and what this sentence would be it was in this case it was however your honor my question would be to the court is did the district court give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to object to the supervised release conditions on this basis the defendant doesn't know if the district court's going to impose those conditions or not so the issue about objecting to them really doesn't come up for air city there again i would be i would argue to the court that it is just not right it doesn't rise to the level of objecting at that time and not can i ask him to ok so just to make it clear the court is going through what he's adopting and he doesn't cite the special conditions and then at the very end of the hearing he says in by the way i impose the special conditions is that right he says that i am that he is a that the defendant is to comply with the mandatory and special conditions that have been adopted but he doesn't go through why he is imposing the special conditions does he know you are there and isn't there requirement because there are special and not mandatory conditions that we've said in our case law that a court has to give specific particularized justification for imposing the special conditions haven't we said that in our case law that is correct in that moment in time i believe is when the opportunity to make a meaningful objection rises right when he says because you have been just hypothetically the sometimes because you have been in no you all of your crimes relate to you being an alcoholic and you're trying to support that habit and you're getting into trouble i give you a special condition of alcohol treatment or you have to have a mental health evaluation because you're you've exhibited this during the case or you have some kind of domestic violence situation so we want you to get some treatment for that or there are always particularized special conditions based and the court articulate it's a reason that's related to the person specifically isn't that right i don't disagree with that and i think that in this particular case and in the cases that really follow the follow is it's a point of sentences i think that there's a very good model i've been for two judges in the northern district and what they require and what they do in regards to any kind of conditions of supervised release of special conditions is at the time of sentencing they have a document and that docket lists what those conditions are and that document is given to the defense attorney and the the defendant to go over and to review and to see if there had any questions in that regard about those that was that's not in this case separate document that's wasn't part of the p s r that's a court the district court judge gives to the defendant and the defense attorney at the time of sentencing it says these are the conditions i'm considering imposing in a special conditions i want you to go over my not done in this case when the special conditions were in the p s r they were given a copy of the p s song and were told that the special conditions were going to be impose and they had you know thirty days to look at it and the knowledge that in open court if they had received and read it and and responded that they had no objections or comments to make about i mean what's the difference between that maturity and the differences in the past are those are recommended in this yes they're not impose their recommended by the probation officer the judge has not stepped forth that he's going to impose those conditions and so going back to my as well if the district court judge who's going to impose those conditions presents that to the defense and the defense attorney which gives them that meaningful opportunity to object  attorneys are focused on the factual findings the guideline calculations and enhancements and things that entered there's not a concert but not the so much well to the senate says well yes but what i'm getting at is that the conditions of supervised release are recommendations and they're not factual findings and so the meaningful opportunity to object to those in which now you know that the court will impose when he says he's going to impose those at sentencing that's  meaningful time to be able to object to those and give your reasons why after after you hear the reasoning why the court will impose  back to court can consider them and make a proper have a proper hearing if we agree with you that it's improper do we have to strike them or can the court have an opportunity to articulate the bases so i think that  was an interesting question is that the general way is that the oral pronouncement controls and therefore there would have to be a special exception maybe to that i don't know that there is one in this particular case that i have found  that the defendant does not do that but can playing the issue for the first time on appeal then they are right in this case is rightly to eas with a more strange and standard of review which in this case is plain and this the court also have a duty to the defendants to articulate a bases a factual basis to e but i would point out to the court that the record clearly shows why the district court imposed each of those conditions first of all the condition that he report to object to this the defendant had several meaningful opportunities to object first i'd like to point out th had many opportunities first he had an opportunity to find no formal written objections he had over four months one hundred twenty one days to file those objections and you know to file a written objection when he doesn't know whether the judge is going to impose a special condition that's a different thing than objecting to the calculation of the synods because you know the judge is going to impose a sin and and you don't know if they're going to oppose any of them and so until the judge just imposes them and gives the reasons that the judge wants to impose them it's object to them but apparently he didn't want to object to that because when the district court imposed those conditions sure at that time banish the pre sentence rent or so during that one hundred sixty one day period he could have told his council at any time that these conditions are  reasonable or that i want you to object to the is because i should be required to fulfill them you have any experience with the with the procedure that's in the rule and can use that used in the northern district that we were discussing earlier dave you had a personal experiences and whether that works well or not you know your government's perspective on ok understood it the defendant's attorney said that he had given his client and a translated copy of the p s r that he had discussed it with i think it would be helpful this case is more like a cop's case where the court when imposing the conditions of supervised release said basically the same thing that the court said here which is he had that report for about a year before he brought up this objection so playing in error review is the appropriate standard  because the defendant did hand several meaningful opportunities to lodge his objections search turning to the question of whether or not i had the defendant you that the answer to that question turns on whether there is a conflict between that written judgment and the or or a poor and we can divide the court there is no conflict the first category would be that when the super revised release conditions are sept fourth under the sentencing guidelines or in the court standard conditions there is no conflict and in this case why the deuce the district court well that's true here on we think that deference standard of review as well as has a major influence in the answer to the ultimate question which is whether his rights were ctually all the cases that we've been talking about except the rule in case arm unpublished writers cox and that's and so what would be the standard that the government would advocate of to what a court should do at sentencing with the special condition to provide appropriate notice what would be the well be the goldstein what would be what the government believes is important and that do believe that the standard that the court used in this case is probably the minimum that a district court should do because as r the defendants filed a thirty five page sentencing memorandum asking that the court very down from the sentencing guidelines there was quite a bit of did downward depart from the sentencing guidelines so there was a lot of argument and of course he could have a doing the same thing which is asking that the court not follow the recommendations of the probation office no you said they asked for down variance  did you finish answering what would be the gold standard of what the government believes is appropriate at the sentence you said you saw the very minimum and then what was below the minimum what is the appropriate standard what would i we do agree to some extent with defense counsel that it probably wouldn't be practical for the court to at least and ask the defendant  questions focus on those conditions of supervisory use and it probably would be practical for the court to ensure or last paying each of the pre sentence report page seventeen of seventeen in the initial report and then in the final p s saw it  are quite clearly list it you can review the p s r if you don't go through the last page and some people may even started as page which in this case is i think further in conclusion we would say that there is no conflict between the written judgment and the to the court that i do believe that the district court does have a responsibility to make a meaningful opportunity for the defendant to object to any special conditions that he seeks to impose i think that with her arguing about did he have a meaningful opportunity at the time the p s r was written i would say no because that meaningful opportunity arises when the district court seeks to impose those and gives the reasons why i think that the better practice which we discussed drone or which would really clear up this whole area is if the district court did have a procedure in place across the districts again i reiterate the eastern district includes these in the p s r the northern district does not and so you don't know what the standard conditions are going to be until the time of sentencing and so if everything was harmonized in such a way that the court gave a meaningful opportunity for the defendant to object to any special condition that is sought to impose through a form of this is what we're considering have them sign it then there is no question any pressure no i really don't understand the argument that you're making to say that it's an important that it is in the p s r that he receives sixty days before sentencing and he's in a much better position and it's a great not equal great opportunity if he hears it for the first time from the i think if the opportunity is there your honor i just don't think that it rises to the level of needing to object at that time prior to sentencing i think it's helpful to have them and you have the recommendations for this special conditions but you don't have any factual basis behind them for why the court w the special conditions of supervised release everything else the case law is clear that if it's in the p s r then the judge can deem that to be reliable in that ship the burden shifts to the defendant to try to disprove or to objecting to make those arguments it's a different case when it's just when it's a says a special condition supervised release in regards to the sense of what the court's going to impose they're just merely recommendations you don't know what the district court is going to do or what basis so to  recommendation it's i would argue to the court and it's different it's not necessarily a recommendation that the defense counsel and the appellant is on notice that they are going to have to inject or the court could object i think it all goes back to it can be tailored a procedure to be in place where this never becomes an issue and it gives the court rest on the district court to give the defendant that meaningful opportunity to object to any special condition that a sixty impose again it doesn't have to be oral but it could be written as the way that we suggested in the judge and when does it in the northern district judge real corner does it in the northern district in fort worth and it clears up any i think when the district court states that it's going to orally impose these conditions and those conditions are set forth in a document that's given to the defendant it's that the defendant accepts and then agrees with them that that can be incorporated into the written judgment without a problem because it does not have to be read word for word but it's in the oral pronouncement of sentence that these are the special conditions that have been submitted that it has given the defendant