and we are now ready to hear nineteen dash for one for united states versus this equally and counsel we are ready when you are many things the court is there ever a time when you stand next continuing violations of the courts impose restrictions on internet use could actually justify a complete it's so if there were such findings you think that that in some circumstances the violations could be agreed just enough to justify a complete ban with a specific finding for you and muted without being asked thank you your aka good afternoon i may have please the court my name is jennifer williams for the united states mr egli has two federal convictions for possession of child pornography and for supervised release violations all involving an authorized use of the internet and computers and the viewing of sexually explicit materials the district court time and again impose last restrictive supervised release special conditions but finally after numerous repetitive conduct in violation of the court's order d for the district court finally with no other options gave him a lifetime internet ban although he did not challenge this ban at the time it was imposed he now tries to challenge it for the st time on appeal our st argument is that because he affirmatively the affirmatively abandoned this challenge to the internet here and the way you're doing that is you're combining two hearings that occurred at different times arguing that because they're represented by the same counsel that we can assume that it was a knowing and voluntary waiver in the nd hearing is that is that your argument essentially that is essentially our argument what this court looks at in determining whether it was an ex unknowing abandonment of the argument  looks to the record and the prior hearing in june th seen is clearly a part of the record in this case and what part of the record but it's a separate stand alone proceeding and the nd hearing was dealing with violations of supervised release that occurred after the st hearing correct yes that's correct and i want to make clear we're not arguing any kind of race judicata or a scuffle the only question for the court is counsel's intent in not raising at that at the final hearing and the fact that the same counsel did raise it and it was extensively discussed at the hearing just three months earlier as evidence of mr agley and his counsel's intent not to raise it with my daughter it would be equally evidence that he just forgot for when you read the transcript you realize how concerned everybody was with where mr ed lee would be said what smoke asian and they immediately moved to that is the primary focus of that hearing that would be an equal explanation that they the fact that he raised that at the prior haring filed a motion on it was then extensively discussed at the hearing it was clearly a very important issue to him just three months earlier and then at a hearing three months later the district court makes clear that it's going to impose a total internet ban and on this record it's very hard to see how his counsel could have simply forgotten something that was clearly very important just a few months earlier well for going to collapse the two hearings and treat him as one house and he done enough to make it very clear that he objects to an lifetime ban of all computers man like you get to pick and choose and say we're going to charge you with the knowledge from that hearing but we're not going to give you credit for raising the issue well that's what i wanted to distinguish our argument is again not a claim that he was somehow bound by what he raised at the prior hearing or that the prior hearing had some sort of determinative effect on the last hearing it's only relevant as it goes to his counsel's intent and whether she simply forgot to raise it which on this record is sort of unbelievable given the extensive discussion about it only three months earlier or whether she made a deliberate decision perhaps to focus on less jail time for her client to not raise it at this hearing well ms williams if if if we don't error this is not an abuse of discretion standard as it was in blair so there has to be a plane and in this case it's not because blair left open a scenario under which a lifetime internet ban could be permissible under extreme circumstances and our position is that this case presents such extreme circumstances when would blair would you read blair saying that you could do that without making in this case not of use of discretion and what the court is looking at in this case because this case doesn't involve not just this the latest supervised release hearing but all the supervised release hearings that came before the  convictions all of which are part and parcel of they all lead to this final supervised release hearing and this court can look at what the district court said in the final hearing but it can look at that in the context of everything that came before so the district court had before it the two convictions for possession of child pornography details about the for supervised release violations all of which involved sophisticated not just use of the internet or computers but sophisticated use of the internet and computers so downloading an authorized virtual private networks asking although he didn't receive it but asking for a personal computer to min all of that indicates someone who is a sophisticated computer user and who has been given chance chance after chance to comply with less restrictive internet restrictions and he demonstrated time and time again a lack that he lacked the self control to so comply in the the record shows that in the ten or so years prior to his final supervised release violation i think he went he was incarcerated for eight of those years but he went about three months that was the most he went without violating his supervised release and all of that evidence was before was clearly before the district court at the final he violent hiv activities and the same district judge cry it was the same district judge it was the same counsel and this hearing occurred at most three months after  the prior hearing and so it's clear from the record and it's clear from the transcript that all the parties via this as a continuation of of their prior hearing which had occurred just a couple of months earlier which is presumably why the district court did not feel it necessary to conduct a whole separate hearing because all of this had been discussed and all of this evidence had been submitted just a couple  made in the well are only are only a point with regard to the question of waiver is whether councils intent at the proper at the final hearing can be inferred from watching did or didn't do at the prior hearing and actually our position is it's the same here that what happened at the prior hearing is relevant so what happened at the final hearing a can get it's part and parcel of the same overall proceeding and i just the problem and i have i mean we we did and i think in omen and in blair suggests that there might be a case that is so egregious that it it may be appropriate to have a special condition of a total internet and but we certainly held that out and something that would be extraordinary and in the absence of specific findings you're asking us to infer what was going through the district court and when the district court took this extraordinary measure now i read through that record in a file where the district court i'd be ready to throw up my hands too but being an appellate court we typically need to have direction and guidance when there's a sentencing issue or revocation issue a special condition that is out of the ordinary to be extreme and and i'm feeling as if we don't have that given how close in time the two supervised release revocation hearings were and given that the court always looks as at the record as a whole we think that those at the final hearing the district or perhaps to not make the final hearing on its own might not stand as providing sufficient reasons for such a ban but the final hearing did not occur in a vacuum and the record the and the reason it didn't occur in a vacuum and perhaps the reason that the district court did not make more extensive findings at the final hearing is that they had these same parties the same attorneys same judge had just gone through a quite expensive process three months earlier where these same issues were discussed and where the two thousand and seventeen psychosexual evaluation was submitted and at that hearing the district court tried again to give mr egli a break he asked for a personal computer she gave him a personal computer and three months later he again well actually the hearing occurred three months later so i think it was about three or four weeks later he again violates and he violates before he even had a chance to use his personal computer he tried to search a pornography words using the work search computer at the halfway house and so from the record as a whole it's the district court clearly felt like it had no other choice but to impose this admittedly was very restrictive total internet fan and i would just one more time point that point this court to the standard of review which again that the holding we're asking for is narrow in this case because it's plain air and so the question is whether in light i see my time has expired that he is barred from the internet for the rest of his life greg they gradually step tighter limits on the use their computers and no matter they just keep being breached all of the conditions are breached and you know that there are searches and things that raise and arms about injury to rd part special instructions thank you counsel we will take the matter under advisement we appreciate your argument today and your excuse