didn't say that the resulting waiver we have since had to melt but camilla doesn't i think squarely addressed the situation and likes to assume that there should be waiver rather endeavors to assume that there should be a waiver if there's a strategic says we feel they are reasonable force rattled off all these numbers including discretionary conditions and supervised release which includes number seven the alcohol one in number sixteen  visitation one the court says all right mr katz i do you have any objection to it so this mr cad side we feel they are reasonable so that's more than some less than others because it seemed so so that's the the present one might find waiver sure and to that i'll say capice they agreed to conditions there they were all they could be plane air or whatever the standard is now become it wasn't enough squarely addresses an uncontested condition we didn't find waiver and kept us we don't find waiver and seals gil jenkins anderson any of those cases silence doesn't do it filing commentary that addresses something else might say strategic picking and choosing that doesn't do it either i or the land prior notice when you're so sure they all look reasonable to us by in then on appeal if there's something wrong with them we should be handcuffed by the decision that the attorney said it looks reasonable when court level is discussed and somebody says they're reasonable that's synonym for saying they're ok we have no objection they're fine sure then that's what waiver is if mr card's i said we have nothing to say or something i mean i suppose some sort of or sometimes we don't have the question the way it's phrase here right now it's clear that the court is asking about these discretionary conditions when the judge right at the end before saying and you let you know and we're done just says hey anything else people you know we've said that's not good enough that is not specific enough that this is about the conditions sure and suppose it was a ten year maximum and judge said i'm going fifteen years imprisonment the lawyer said that's reason it's playing there we're still going to be able argue it and i give you all the examples i just gave you had to repeat them the problem but that's a different situation where the statutory cap these are just scratching area condition if we can get into them i do think you have a point because it doesn't look clear to me that there was ever an oral pronouncement of the discretionary conditions that we don't have an oral judgment and even though at one point the alcohol honor i can only point again to capitals and to the cases that i mention if in all those cases you agreed that the conditions were wrong for me saying that the lawyer agreed that the conditions were wrong or that the enhancement applied with the criminal history was correct with the rest too she was accurate those people were not precluded from getting relief on the appeal it wasn't waived it's not waiver here the conditions are wrong and the checking of the pilots may have satisfied the box was unchecked the guy doesn't drink so i have the condition and then so far as about the  into the sentence all of the conditions that we have to instead argue back out this would be a better game to play because we've got people coming in and looking at serious time and other issues and you don't want to tick off judges and yet we are then picking and choosing trying to do what we can to defend our clients and then there are things that limit their liberties i was risk free incarceration it's because we adopt all these conditions they all come in wholesale from the get go and then you're caught trying to contend with what you can it's not a great way to do this in my opinion and we've talked way that since siegel about imposing conditions at a later stage in the proceedings when the person is released and your honor i think you're practically minded person it seems practical to wait and do it  deal but i think you need congress to reform the process for i don't think so you impose mandatory conditions and you wait upon release and you then have a thirty five fifty three year in where you can modify conditions at the conditions as necessary you've got the guy who's been incarcerated for ten years you know what he needs a b there are things that he doesn't need anymore because he got some help for substance abuse problem there are lots of things that can be done at the appropriate juncture he might void a lot of appeals  we don't do it this way and instead we've got people at the court is doing and in this case one of the things that we had thought maybe was a reasonable grounds to get those conditions for both sides well in advance sens here and give people some time to read them talk to your client do whatever you need to do that seems to be what happened here your honor to the fences under the avalanche and then you're digging out what you can to help out your client and you've got wanting to you just said eighteen months custody good afternoon your honor says that correct mr gandhi eighteen months yes your honor the guideline range was twenty seven to thirty three months and the custodial sentence was eighteen months ok so pretty insignificant sentence for because you didn't even have a p s r had the point zero eight imitation of it that didn't make it into the written sentence and there's no oral pronouncement to fall back on that's true your honor but there are more efficient ways to it's his right thinks that it's worth complaining about the alcohol condition and the visitation condition and it's certainly the case that our decisions on apparently identical facts come out both ways on work related visitation conditions as being unreasonable or not unreasonable well that is why does he need it as compared to anybody else i'm sorry why does he need to have the probation officer visiting him at work and other people don't need you know it's unreasonable for other people well clearly and in this case the probation officer proposed that condition yeah  supports the proposition that that requiring requiring the defendant to submit to probation officer visits kept work can be a problem right and i time at home at work or at any other reasonable locations specified by a probation officer that's ortiz well but it says that they could test the opposite now i cry you're right about that it's not casting particularly bright light on eyes for doing that which ways right well i think that the way that the court came out and victor acknowledges the fact and this is i think explicit in the language and bickered that  that you can't operate this system on the assumption that probation officers are going to go out of their way to try and place the people under their supervision in situations where they're going to violate officers will try to be reasonable it is in the interests of of everyone that the defendant succeed on supervised release and that and then his experience in working seen some exceptions exceptions to those principles legally but i don't disagree with you generally heighten and i think that what pickert said in language in that opinion was general and i your honor there are situations where  where that is not necessarily observed but again in terms of how we're going to look at this from a systemic from a systemic view the assumption has to be in favor of the actors performing in the system of performing in a way that's conducive to the goals of the system and the goal here in the supervisor least is for the defendant to be successful if employment is is there for him and if it's helping him to advance and it's in the interest of the probation officers and it's in everyone's interest that he be successful at that i don't think that this condition is unreasonable and in specially especially in light of the defendant's waiver at the at the sensing hearing where he agreed that all the conditions of the court intended to close were reasonable that this calls for just i'm worried about an argument that says if we put a sufficiently irrelevant condition into your supervised release order then we don't worry about it you know don't fly to the moon tomorrow either all right so he's not going to fight  but what if somebody thinks he's preparing to fly to the moon or he said a party where people are talking about flying to the moon well to the extent that this is a condition that is not necessary for this defendant because it's not supported by any probably not but you know again again that that points along the lines of of having this thing corrected by way of a motion in the district court there's no reason there's no reason to to remain and this case for sort of situation where everything that could possibly be wrong with any of these conditions has been breached by very able counsel and he has that going forward so so my point is that th even a limited remained for re sentencing even on just one aspect is not as efficient as as having him go forward with a motion in the district court as nationally kind of condition that if your honor in united states versus manrico johnson which i believe judge hamilton was one of the panelists on that we said we don't require people to wait to go back and contest something that they can raise on the appeal now and the lack of counsel is one of the reasons not to file motions  can file appeals that's what we've elected to do here capice requires clear conditions the condition about excessive alcohol it's not clear it's easy to fix you would ask for a limited meaning and but the focus of the government has on whether the condition is about rights and liberties those early constitutional important the condition then ask me at least restrictive means and when you've got somebody doesn't drink in a condition stricture alcohol consumption that is restriction it's by definition then greater than necessary in a case like th same as for working someplace if we can get by with no probation officer peering at his work which then doesn't interfere with his work doesn't appear interfere with his ability to keep into his job then that's to his benefit which then have a job reduce you have in probation officers that your work in fear interferes with your right to work which then again is a constitutional issue thirty five thirty three to counsel against sending probation officers there and the probation officers concerns of ministration are the paramount concern  the defendant's rights statute says so so we recognize probation officers are hardworking want to do a good job typically do but that's not the benchmark here we look at what the statute requires or the defendant's rights are in this case we ask are limited we meant to