that is thank you your honor may had please the court my name is daniel drake a lawyer from phoenix arizona and i'm representing brett a gay in this case this case involves a blanket prohibition on contact with children under the age of eighteen and going to places where he was likely to encounter children under the eighteen and having contact with children under the age of eighteen of the problem with those is that they are over those restrictions are overbroad they cover children for which there is no factual basis for protecting according to this  case and secondly they are vague in some respects but typically when it comes to where he knows children are likely to be under the statutes raised here have to do with due process notice as to what he was he admitted to do and that's a constitutional issue and secondly the impact on his ability to travel about his community and do things of that sort which is a constitutional liberty freedom and so under those circumstances we submit t of that sore but in language different than what we have here in this case you have restrictions for limitation ords of that are not present whereas they are present you know is that you of uphill and typically i would point to a case like b where you say that you can't go to a place where children are known to  be primarily there as brymer only for a child of the same is true with reardon and daniels where they talk about a place that is primarily used by children  number a specific challenge to number thirteen but if she did raise a vigorous challenge to contact with children and restrictions upon his ability to be with with children that's of st of all i would argue that that plane error gives not apply because she spoke to the language of contact with children and that is included within  to review of the airplane hair of the argument would be that the st two cases that is to say the st two elements are met because this should not have occurred in the fashion  there and then with respect to whether you want to have knowledge should i would argue that the disc to your discretion is to do so and to do so to prevent an on for circumstance that is to say the cases that i've pointed out that distinguish this great are done basically on on a fairness issue reasonable and to submission and in this particular case there was not such are please record good afternoon your honor is my name is william boyd i'm in a usa from phoenix on behalf of the united states the district court did not impose any illegal sentence and that is the only thing that would allow the defendant to escape an appeal waiver d that clearly covers the considered the objections that were made that she responded based on the record evidence and on common sense and she imposed a completely legal sentence while within her white discretion as a district judge to impose i would point the court to four main categories  defendant made no such objection below and that is the condition regarding going to locations like parks and playgrounds where children are likely to be the defendants are g r fifteen and seventeen at the sentencing hearing referred to objecting to the condition that he have no contact with the victim or the victim's family and a blanket condition of no contact with individuals under the age of eighteen those are conditions twelve and eleven the same statements were made in the sentencing memorandum as this court said in  iago and the watson cases objections have to be specific it's not fair to ask district courts to divine those sorts of objections based on that bulis language even in watson there was an objection to the particular condition but not on the grounds that was raised on appeal would be constitutional who prevent him from going to for example to a mcdonald's or a i think that there are not on these particular facts your honor i mean if it was somebody who had perhaps and wine to models i don't think so i mean i think it might depend on what you're doing where you're going in a mcdonald's you know there are parts of my dolls where they have like children's play areas i think that we clearly be covered but  to be unconstitutional i think that if this again on this particular case if if that was the way the condition was was to be read then there would be a problem here but i don't think it is because i think that the condition think to a true war on interpretation and that comes then back to the plane error as to how how likely it is to be read too broad y i wish i wish you had written it in a way that lived that i think you're actually wanting to do it but it's not like what written or that's my problem i think your honor is right to come back to the plane error question as disposing of it because it is difficult to to to ask the district court to interpret to address something that isn't actually being brought up and how did bennett might have been able to be tweaked in a way that would avoid it because the government as we say in our brief is not arguing that merely incidental controlling authority that says this is improper and you have at best thing authority that could go either way that's the closest authority out there it cannot as a matter of law be plain error in the case that counsel and it seems to me to you're you're i don't think that a person of ordinary intelligence as you would why doesn't and i guess i so why doesn't it merit planers interview because it seems what i'm saying i guess is that it seems to me that just reading it and you could certainly be read out way  vegas and again there was no vagueness objection either so we're now adding playing their arguments on top of playing their arguments but the the the question of whether he would understand this is judged by a person of ordinary intelligence under the court's case law and as i think everyone is thought i would again say it depends on where we're talking about i don't think that it would be like asking does you know can can he go to you know a city or something like that it's the work i think you have to look at the specific area where he's going if there's a playground and wait a minute bars i think i would i would come back to the cases like b and riordan and daniels which include the very similar list including the word parks and riordan including the word parks and daniels including the word parks and b those are not cases that this co the cases that that i saw although i'm not sure that all of them specifically engage with this particular point but in the williams case the condition was to avoid the company of children and in the law in case we refer to the district court not to do that discretion in imposing a condition that limited access to minors so i don't know how far how deeply that went but i would i would say with respect to this that this is a defendant unlike cases like well child where there was a problem with that who abused the family relationship a member of his family over the course of years and took advantage of the family relationship in order to gain access to that child over those years so the limitation in this case is entirely supported by the record and the district  that in my experience the way that it usually works is that the defendant's lawyer will reach out to the government and say we would like to modify the conditions of supervised release in this way we've talked with the probation officer and they support or oppose it what is your position and then they'll file a motion either knowing the government's opposition in the case to be contested raising or if there's no up there's no opposition and you know usually the parties are going to be on the same page or or they won't be if there is no much all right there are a couple of things that could have prevented this from happening the pre sentence report and the evaluation that the government counsel places a lot of stock in bo talk about being of the defended being in their company or being chaperoned if you will by a healthy family member had those things been included by example they that we as the conditions be vacated in the case remembered to the district court of the district the defendant we believe shown that these restrictions are greater than necessary and that the facts cited do not just process so if it can be done it just takes but not a small act of congress but a but it takes more