the it's the stanley brian when someone raises for example an affirmative defense well this is not an affirmative defense isn't it in the nature of firm and defense when you say yeah that's a general rule but it doesn't apply to me of that's a statement i did i made subject to sort of if i move in other words if the if registration becomes a political to me because i change my location then i'm going to have to part destroys the before the end part if you get my drift i think i do and i think the answer is you know as i read out when we were preparing mr stanley's case the way that i read it was twenty four twenty  possibly a trigger first lorna i have an exception so i'm relying on the if applicable section in order to preserve my arguments which were time we preserved my our sentencing memorandum and also on the record in sentencing and if there is any applicable to the dependent and then at the time that i did this that's a memorandum and outside thing i raised my objection so i think at the very very worst it's ambiguous and that a information with respect to the defense background character conduct including carpet subject of charges which the united states has agreed to dismiss that's a that's in the plea that even if we accept that under the circumstances pacific approach when we would merely be confined to looking at the counts of conviction is it possible to view that statement by your client has any good knowledge sentencing and of course this one it is a feature of the sentencing right we have to say that's true why wouldn't that agreement communicate to the district court judge we need knowledge that right so let's and and we understand you've got an argument about waiver but let's get to the assume we got past waiver through the basic question if the government wanted to deal with a clear route to sorn or registration here why did big government not why did you go to choose to dismiss every hey you court you should be able to look at everything in the record because c l said look at everything in the record and yet you dismiss all the counts that would make that natural to look at those things reading only the transportation construed against the government was in this and the right did they made their bed they ought to be made to lie in it and it doesn't include sort of registration all first of all the plea agreement does include sort of registration that paragraph twenty seven where the defendant says i women who were identified by initial stenson you know in the revenge baghran of my life that doesn't exhaust the universe you've left us to guess that those three women are with three women who are identified by initials there's not an identification is there there's approach to be modified by agreement of the party's leader asif the difference here is that the circumstance specific approach as it applies to them in that violation can consider those circumstances including record to support that all the women workers there the records support that certain would work worse and there's also evidence in the record that some women were participating in this criminal activity we're dealing with not a single episode of prostitution i'm not saying that every time these prostitutes engage in sex for mr steele over the course of many months or several years that every single sex act when the government has to prove it and that is i believe that's correct yeah so why isn't that the same sort of operate why isn't that same principle in operation here this is a a sentencing this is part of as far as the victims all being coerced and that drugs were given to every single object on i would like to draw the court's attention to the p s r cooperating witness number three did not allege any abuse by mr stanley cooperating witness number four was not even a prostitute working for mr stanley cooperating witness number six simply said that mr stanley left her once without getting her food after she told them she was hungry but hearing i started those findings are concerned additionally i know that the term consensual is not really defined in the statute either which i think christine is a little bit of a problem but i did find something that i wanted to bring to the court's attention as i was preparing for arguments today it was included in my briefing by the government's national guidelines for sex offender registration and notification which are called the smart guidelines they're found seventy three federal register thirty eight thousand and thirty it states the government's own position on the consensual sexual contact exception and it states that the jurisdiction does not have to require registration based on prostitution and i think it could also lead to absurd results where courts can impose registrations for offenses not encompass by the statute if they felt like it so i'm not seeing how it can possibly be a discretionary condition i think the next circuit was