morning your honor stephanie attractive son behalf of jerry kagan's by appointment mr cleveland's has retained a personal stake in the outcome of his petition for writ of habeas corpus despite his release from custody in two thousand  this is correct these are not in custody now and he's not under any parole conditions she's a free man in oregon that is correct your honor he is his only beef that if he were to move to nebraska which he doesn't declare any intention of doing declaration that shows he has an intention or need a plan to move to any of them he has not your honor and i think that's the same issue for him as it would be for any citizen we don't know where we're going to move in the future or what our intentions might be and for those reasons he has i would submit a personal stake and the liberty interest in preserving the opportunity an option to move to those places without suffering serious adverse consequences that is being assessed a person of medium or high risk to the community due to revocation that unfairly resulted in his incarceration for seven years and so i would submit that it's not simply one state that's doing this we we have included in our papers evidence that nevada new york new jersey among others have shifted the focus of their registration and notification procedures from simply taking into account another relates to ineffective assistance and absence of counsel in his subsequent reviews because he was kept in confinement for the maximum possible term i would submit in part due to the fact that his counsel withdrew determining his risk in a totally different light because absent this revocation he would have a demonstrated presence in the community of seventeen years without any law violations or any violations of any kind it yes he would have to register but i my my point is that i think any fair adjudication of his risk level would be of a low risk absent this revocation whereas with the revocation he looks very different  and he has a right in the states that do have a risk assessment to contest the assessment of his wrist and there are states in new york and new jersey and oregon which have held that you have a right to appeal  high risk is not valid or accurate and mr keegan's could use an order of the federal court adjudicating the revocation is invalid to demonstrate what is not a risk it sounds to me kind of analogous to the thing that the supreme court has spoken of a lot in environmental cases like move on for person says i don't want the government to do something that they planned to do in some park i've never been case or controversy over federal jurisdiction under article three your honor i'm not familiar with the environmental cases but i think mr cadence right to travel and to be free of education and public broadcast of the opinion of authorities that he is a medium or high level risk to the community use of a fundamentally different kind because it is going to a national park or a place for recreation is fundamentally different from your right to your anonymity your privacy and to not be held up to public scorn or ridicule if you go to a place for whatever reasons because there's a job there for you family members whatever reasons mr cave ins has those interests which i think are very fundamentally different from ones that you would invoke to recreation in a particular area and in in these in the cases that i have put before the court that show and the  to do with his freedom to write to preserve the opportunity to go to these places that have these assessment statutes and so although he has not said he wants to go to these places his concern which i think is is natural is that if he if this petition is dismissed as moot and he does decide to move to nebraska nevada mean new york new jersey  large number of places that he would be subject to public public notification based on information that's wrong if we actually got here to move this is a correct that that is i think your response to judge thompson indicated that our inquiry if we got past movements would just be on whether his lawyer did a lousy job  him in this revocation because the floor and left him exposed to these risks in states that he had no intention of going to well that would include the court's determination as to whether he was prejudiced in any ineffectivene determination and that prejudiced analysis would have to include a determination of whether the outcome would have been different in other words a fair in a fair adjudication mr cuban's would not have been revoked and sent back to the hospital and so given hi very very long term record of program compliance and given the record here showing that he had not demonstrated a resistance to treatment i would submit that he could prevail in such a determination and with an order of that kind could such an opportunity to educate this if that petition is declared moot he will never happen opportunity to do that and the problem here i think is that it's not fair to require of him that he actually move  if we're if we're how can we reconcile that case and that wind of cases where we say you're outside the united states you're under an order not to come back but it's not moot because you might come back even though it's illegal for you to come back with this where he says well i might want to go to to arizona are nebraska or something like that is not sort of the same thing in terms of a movement well off the top of my head the one difference would be that i assume that this person who has now been deported is get is receiving notice apparently he litigated the issue so he did receive notice that there are judicial proceedings ongoing in the united states in which you are a defendant and you are you could you could be subjected to injury if you don't come forward or at least send an attorney in to represent your interest states voluntarily or involuntarily he was he was deported and we said no it's not moot he might come back there was not even any indication that he wanted to come back or that he was under any any freedom to come back and like you  know well in there the government's taking a proactive step to try and put criminal sanctions on him here the government is not doing so why does that make any difference in terms of the movements analysis because there's no injury the deported individual controversy i just want to quickly address why that case is distinguishable you have to compare and carty jesus was found in s p p and subjected to duty to register every ninety days and if he didn't he was going to be sent to jail for a year being subjected to risk assessment since carty had a duty to register he was challenging his federal habeas action the commitment resulted in that duty to register if cabin carty one is due to register would be would vanish as would no longer how do we want i am i understand what you just said under carter he was not free to just live happily ever after without being bothered by the government he had to go in every ninety days and fill out papers continuing ongoing duty every ninety days to register to and also inform them of his employment status cabins is not analogous because he doesn't presently have any duty or he's not being subjected my argument just boils down to although there is a possibility and we can see that there is a possibility that at some point in the future mr callan's could be subjected to risk assessment and it's possible that risk assessment might take into account his transferred inpatient treatment will be used to do a risk assessment and in particular if you look at nebraska's there is a twenty point consequence to a person who is being evaluated with that checklist based on whether or not they were they had treatment violations and i've also provided this static ninety nine summary of how that is that actuarial instrument that's used to do risk assessment that takes into account whether a person whether  not has done anything that resulted in their being being accused of that by law enforcement it appears based on the documents i provided that  allegation that my client had possessed or had lived in a in a trailer that had some child pornography in it possessed by another person would be sufficient to count as a sex offense under the static ninety nine which is a widely used instrument to assess risk and one that has been adopted in the state of oregon where mr cadence currently lives and finally i would point to language in the spencer became the case that talks about threatened collateral consequences not just once that exist right now and here i think there is enough of a threat based on the adoption of these kinds of risk assessment procedures and in states around the country that mr cleveland's does have a continuing i think he has been the same interest in preserving his right to move freely about the country as any other citizen and if he is prevented from adjudicating this petition it will significantly confine his freedom of movement for the rest of his life like anyone else he cannot now say you know i know for sure that i want to move to a particular place but i think our courts have recognized that that is a significant personal liberty interest to have that option and that is what he is trying to preserve here is the freedom to do that without facing very serious adverse consequences that would be based on an adjudication that he has strong claims was unfair