that's the context in which the issues are raised the the main issue at trial and the only really contested issue was whether or not that domestic violence no contact order was issued after hearing of which the defendant had notice and at what she had an opportunity to participate and as far as the government is aware this is the first time really this court is considered what are those requirements under federal law for a prosecution could you help us with sufficient to constitute notice within the meaning of the washington stanchions like yes that is our position and i think that's that's just kind of part of the position because it's part of our position here listing of defense counsel but we know the council was appointed two days earlier and the defendants and this is what makes it tough for the government we can't call the defendant to the stand said did you talk to your attorney did you have a chance to talk to him about th before the hearing went forward which is was really a concern of the district court you know there was no counsel there and the judge in fact the district court found that the judge precluded that opportunity which we submit there's absolutely no evidence the evidence is to the civil domestic violence no contact order where the individuals out in the community they're free in their of their pending with an order and certainly in that context we can't say to that defendant look now that you've been was received sex partake temporary no contact order you can't possess a firearm because in fact the person hasn't had an opportunity to respond hasn't appeared in front of a judge or at least been given the opportunity in the context of a criminal case it's different you have a defendant who's brought in on a very serious domestic violence related charge and the court issues of domestic violence no contact order almost as a function of law really because it's something that the court has to review before they release a person on bond pursuant to washington state you and that but i'm like a civil context you have the defendant there in person he has the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the judge the judge asked him who are you living with and you know i'm going to issue  well i think this case is distinguishable from all of the cases that we have out there because it's a criminal context so whenever you're talking about due process and the interests of the party it's a whole different context when you're talking about a defendant who  seems to want in this case that we have to have the full blown discovery process like in a criminal trial under under rule sixteen where we give them a police report so what it is that is a he did say that he didn't he w in a particular provision of the order he says that he wasn't given the police reports to review and contest he wasn't given the probable cause statement to review and contest and that to me sounds like a discovery requirement that he's he's the actual notice and an opportunity to participate in the government's position in this case would ask this court to render the plain words of congress the choice made by congress into really a legal melanie that neither the rules of statutory construction which favor the defense not the government nor the u s constitution allow the court to ignore the choice that congress has made working  things were worded and could have been silent just said any constitutional or any order which would imply any constitutional order suffice and certainly a no contact order couldn't be constitutional if there was was every court that has read this provision all of the courts have understood the words noticed an opportunity to participate used by congress to refer to a due process hearing and that's not really surprising given that those words are very familiar and the other circuits are unanimous in understanding that a due process hearing is contemplated by the wording of the statute furthermore even though their stance is the really challenging of the the hearing is in violation of violence justify no contact orders to be issued on an ex parte basis so that the status quo can be made safe before an actual hearing is given but congress made the choice that those emergency orders were not where the order was never in the federal crime would be laid out but congress didn't say anything about advance notice of the hearing and it was literally and they didn't say opportunity to participate with your lawyer so i'm still wondering if why in this case when we're dealing with statutory interpretation don't we have to add something to the statute to accept your client's position i don't think sell the idea that actual notice and opportunity to participate require advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to speak to work together has been around since the early part of the twentieth when the defendant in wilton went into the judge's chambers that he knew the judge was going to be deciding the no contact issue he knew before he went to court that day and he knew before he went into the judge's chambers for the discussion of the plenary order and before the no contact order was issued in this case there was testimony uncontroverted that the defendant was asked can you list by the terms of this order none of those facts were present in mr young's case mr young never demonstrated an ability to manage his way through he was there at the hearing he talked to the judge the judge asked him questions he responded no problem he then signed the bottom of the order acknowledging receipt of it including the provision that says you ca never be able to bring these prosecutions simply wouldn't exist for one thing i think the statutes primarily aimed at civil cases there are a number of nine twenty two provisions of deal with criminal cases and including convictions for posting in a crimes of domestic violence and felony convictions fact on the sixth the judge had said or included in one of his written orders on the eighth we're going to be discussing the no contact order then he has actual notice if he's given some sort of explanation a nation context there needs to be some disclosure of the evidence to be used against the respondent to the hearing we're not saying it has to be a full fledged discovery but something here and there was nothing the judge made certain distinctions that there was probable cause and shared none of that with mr u s constitution allowed mr to have counsel with him at that hearing and basically ask counsel if they were prepared to proceed this court doesn't need to get to what i think could be the complicated issues under nine twenty two g eight as to whether or not cross examination should be permitted those are some complicated issues but there wasn't anything here was the concern is still there i think all those issues could be raised if counsel  for the appellant after the domestic of the no contact order was under made some type of collateral challenge saying that order shouldn't have been entered and i wanted vacated the statute would be worded differently than the statute would simply be worded that you had had actual notice of the order and x party orders would be covered because an aztec part order does not go into effect until the person is served and the fifth circuit