be plain a simply and where there is clearly violates clear principles and here the clear principle is the plain language of the statute and additionally this court has said many many times even in the context of fines in particular that a sentence that exceeds the statutory lawyer and also that the court looks differently when when the error when there's no hint of sandbagging right or strategy this is just a simple inadvertence there's no there's no reason counsel didn't object other than you know if i may speculate that counsel is concerned about the eligible defendant an eligible defendant is defined as somebody who is indigent and then convicted of one of the listed sex sex or victim trafficking offenses and the critical points are the not only so that's the plain language just says it right there but the other point i'd like to and the cries is that silence here speaks volumes you know our congress is obviously concerned as it rightly should about the imposing a five thousand dollar criminal defendant and most criminal defendants don't have five thousand dollars they're not jerk call or some you know wall street financier five thousand dollars of them is a significant amount of money in and of itself the idea and congress put that into congress evident sho if congress wanted to double triple quadruple quintuple that already significant amount surely it would have said so your honor i mean this is not a small thing right the idea that you can just read into the statues kind of willy nilly that oh it's a on a per account basis five that four counts five thousand and twenty grand you can't do that you know this is not like three thousand and thirteen your honor that's you know we're talking three thousand and thirteen that the amounts even now they've been originally they were even lower and thirteen dollars we're talking nominal trivial amounts of money as opposed to five thousand dollars it's not it's not a we're not it's a categorical differences in the amounts so this idea and this is the government s so so again this idea that congress was very concerned about the defendant's ability to pay five thousand dollars it's evidence by the fact that unlike three thousand and thirteen right three thousand and thirteen there's no if congress was aware that this is a significant amount and thus in the absence of an absence of a clear statement elsewhere in the statute that this five thousand dollars is to be double triple quadruple quintuple by the count  so this court you know it does you so computer modern conditions there's a lot of cases in this court about this right and what the cases in the say that basically an ordinary a you know run of the mill c p offender which almost always in involves using computers for run of the mill offender yes well you can't bar him from from using the internet that's soft but you can monitor and you can monitor his use of computers and we don't dispute that and so the question is what is the extent of that monitoring how intrusive is that monitoring given that even at the fender convicted of child pornography and unsupervised release that person still retains fundamental constitutional liberties including the th amendment rights  constitutional liberties has to be narrowly tailored this is from the court's decision and lifshitz from two thousand and four has to be narrowly tailored and not sweeps so broadly as to draw into it a wide swat material and this condition here on its face your honor on its face violates that rule it allows it on its face allows the probation officer to survey all activity on mr have a camp computers and connected devices so you know some people don't have a computer at home that's not connected right so if you have a child maybe you have a computer that you use for processing or even write letters or to to you know doodling on or whatever this condition allows you know allows the probation officer even to monitor all activity on an unconnected device and there's simply no reason for that that's more intrusive mr hammer camps liberty denby's point necessary may please the court my name is a loony footer and i'm an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the government on appeal as i did at the district court below the district courts guidelines sentence in this case should be affirmed in all raises three issues before this court which he seeks to have this court nd guess judge abrams this decision on sentencing after he pled guilty to possession receipt distribution of child pornography none of his grounds for appeal has any merit st judge abrams did not abuse her discretion in sentencing mr harper camp principally to a guideline sentence of one hundred and twenty one months imprisonment judge abrams did not air much less plainly air in assessing a five thousand dollars special assessment per count under section three thousand and fourteen dollars as that is the plain language of the statute and what it requires finally judge abrams appropriately imposed computer monitoring as a condition of mr hubbard him supervised release in light of the oftens conduct at issue here and the need to adequately deter mr harper camp one in once he is released from his custodial sentence in one hundred and twenty one month plain language requires that the special assessment be assessed per count but the language of the statute st of all is tight the statute is titled additional special assessment and the relevant part of that court to appropriately apply the mandate of section three thousand and fourteen dollars the special assessment has to be imposed on top of each assessment that was given under thirty thirteen's it's  on your honor i would argue that there is actually even though it has been applied in this way i don't think that there has been a circuit split at this point given the fact that there was no discussion of exactly how the different courts arrived at their without guidance from this court and the fact that it would be helped if we just hear your honor the under the standard of plain error review i think the defendant can't meet his burden and so therefore while it would be helpful if he because he does not meet the plane air standard of review of the special assessment imposed by the district court must be affirmed turning to the computer monitoring condition your honor the assertion that this was improperly imposed is without merit and again does not rise to the level of play in error review the computer monitoring condition that was imposed in this case is that the defendant must participate in the computer internet program as part of the that program and that and as part of that program the probation office will be authorized to install any application as necessary to survey all activity on on computers owned or operated by mr however camp what the program will look like at the time of mr however camps releases unknown but given that there was no objection from the defendant to the special condition when it was imposed it was not in plain error for the court to impose such a condition given the often conduct issue and given the fact that mr harper can soften his conduct relied heavily on computer usage in fact most distressingly in contacting minors and having those miners produce additional child pornography that wasn't already part of the existing horrendous child pornography market at place at the time and indeed the special part of the special condition that mr hammer camp has issue with and is most worried about is not even guaranteed under the special condition in the judgment of conviction to be ent implemented under the plain terms of the condition because it's only as necessary if the probation office decides that it's necessary to survey activity or to implement the application to survey activity on his internet accessible computers moreover there is no need for this court to invalidate this condition on plain error review as if and when the part of the condition that mr herbert camp is most concerned about is in fact implemented mr however camp will have the opportunity at that point to firmed and unless the panel has any further questions for the government the government will rest on its arguments and afraid i think you will hear them a b and you just took very quick points st this idea that government just relies on that they're both called special suspects right as a valid means and in a settled issue but this is really just a generic term and neither party talked about this in the briefs but if i may speculate i think the trafficking fund and so that's why they're lumped together me thirty million three hundred and three thousand and forty they're the only as far as i know the only things called special assessments in the u s code but everybody you know but the district court called it a fine the probation office called it a fine and certainly it is a fine it's just that for this reason it's not and the the other point i like to emphasi ze we don't think you need to get there because you know the rule only applies only where there is sort of like essentially a terminal ambiguity but certainly ties goes to the run around on this this question this is a without a doubt a criminal five thousand dollars asman and the defendant appealed on the ground that he was that even the five thousand dollars should have been imposed because he was indigent ok and this court i think sent it back i think judge judge sac was on the panel of the government is so again this is again further confusion here that even in this circuit and this court itself has now essentially passed on this question and the government never argued in that case there should have been a fifteen thousand dollars fine and so the court needs to decide t