neighborhood after making that connection he won on to describe his constant fear of the sex offender in his neighborhood how he and his wife were constantly vigilant about where that person was the threat that sex offender represented to his own children and after making those extensive comments he said that in his own mind his discomfort was rising to a level of feeling that he other alternative made the for cause challenge to your armstrong based on his extensive comments which i won't belabor and if that point the district court judge makes a ruling rejecting the foreca jurors wife's experience not his own in this case it's juror armstrong's himself who had a pretty personal connection to this case that he made the connection in his own min trying to figure out what it means because they seem to be fairly there are tension between items seven item to have there are conflicting provisions where if you read tend to modify the problem is it's a greater restriction of liberty than necessary on a talent for this case why in this case it works to deprive him wholly of a means of communication quest we have a telephone box that he can get to go to the public library i would have lots of other ways of getting of getting information besides the internet i agree it would be very inconvenient but the question is whether it's whether it's unnecessary whether this is whether this is too restrict this unnecessary i guess i would first point to the definition of computers i'm saying crudes cell phones p d s other devices and this would represent a complete ban during a period of supervision their i believe you're on the motion of modifying the condition of supervision would probably during a period of supervision nonetheless believe that the issue is squarely in front of the panel and is ripe  my time ok thank you this may be paper sort of vigilant about this i thought i just heard you tell me that you couldn't find alltel in reading the record is that right or wrong recommended sanctions to the judge from the probation office and i have to act although i have to concede that i believe that probation invites some of those based on submissions from the united states attorney's office but i think that our not or do you or do you read numbers tell an eleven as controlling and saying no that's an absolute prohibition number seven or first or something else i'm not sure what else but something else i think it's the government's view that number because it's not officially it it's just it's my understanding that it's a private letter between the probation office and the court that the parties can see depending on the judge some of the judges asked probation to start the party some of the judges do they do yeah well that is that is true although i understand her social workers are mathematicians well your honor actually it's been at least my experience recently that the probation officer at least in and under your reading there is an absolute prohibition on having access to a computer except of work yes why is there an appropriate restriction i live in other words this is judged by discretion but that the internet is not such a substantial right that would require under the a line a standard for playing our review that would require a reversal of the case but the language out of the head of out of eighteen u s c thirty five fifty three a is unfortunately have to confess i'm not particularly familiar with that with the other standard so i know that we did ask ok well what's the goal here is the goal to prevent him from accessing child pornography on the internet or is the goal to prevent him from using the internet well if the goal is to prevent him in the interest of rehabilitation of the interest of protecting the community images of whatever from using the internet then this looks like if that looks like that's what that's about as good a fit as you're going to get if the goal is to prevent him from accessing child pornography then we've got to consider sort of the filtering questions and other and other alternatives that are looked into by some of the courts this was not actually a child between valid communication and invalid communication but of course there's nothing in the record on that and so i mean what the government was seeking to do in this case certainly in requesting conditions such  and you understand you understand that you ever ever have use of a personal computer or use a computer at home never probation officer and i understand that there filters to them put on these computers restrictions you can put you know that yes your honor that is true although the nature of the crime that was involved because he was using it as a communications tool and not simply as a result positive for child pornography the best way to monitor hand in the best way to supervise him is simply to prevent him from using a ok thank you thank you first i'm going to i believe the government just represented that the condition was also imposed orally and so i just scanned the excerpts of record and i'm specifically looking at excerpts of records one ninety seven and one ninety eight i actually don't see the conditions that we've just been discussing imposed orally i see one of the conditions it's a challenge to in a pounds opening brief but i do not see imposed orally the conditions seven ten and eleven that we've just been discussing obviously this was not raised in the palace opening very i'll be the first to admit that it is not in there under united states reality and if there isn't a conflict between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the judgment in committed order court didn't go over these issues and what i'm saying is i believe the court when you were substantially almost all of the conditions but conditions that were not gone over as i read discussion specifically conditions ten and eleven don't appear to be in the oral commencement of judgment however they obviously as we've been discussing appear in the judgment of commitment order and i'm sorry i give you argued that the  the judgment and commitment order includes a condition that the oral pronouncement does not it is the oral pronouncement that controls because that is when the defendant is present upon the pronouncing of judgment and then briefly i would just turn to whether the condition is not greater than necessary and if that's continuous with restrictive and i would just stand that there are two conditions that could have been imposed and one that was imposed that would nonetheless allow limited internet access one is random searches of internet usage were imposed by the court and would provide  a way to monitor the defendant's internet use second as opposed to reared in an analog use with probation officer approval would also