to provide deterrents the need to protect the public or the need to provide care or treatment or training to the defendant here i think there is no question that the two conditions are not related to the nature of the in to the need to provide deterrence for said it seems to me though that you can see that if texas required him to register then there would be appropriate to say basically you got to follow state law and register there seems to be a lot of confusion and concern about whether condition to require registration if the state department attrition so to make the condition explicitly dependent on state in which case directly to condition entirely put it is do you think we should modify it to say that and then what happens when you all are fighting about whether or not he does have to register in texas so then what happens with that well then that fight moves to the texas state court because as it stands if the condition required registration only of the state required registration then the fight you know is no longer in federal court if they are there is a mandatory condition that requires mr copy into the two but the five in federal court would be violating the conditions of his supervisor required to register it is not modified to be dependent on state law so my i believe the parties agree that if the condition is amended to be dependent on the law then there is no issue because of course there is a mandatory condition that requires a mr coffee lives either his wife or girlfriend but he has not had any offenses and he they haven't you know i mean and i appreciate that and we have to go with what he's convicted of that to me the domestic violence situation it  it's edging on to that framework so we can just say look you had one mistake he's learned from it he's moved on that was a long time ago it yeah well that's also has looked at when judging the  sex offense is relevant to to a conditional release if it were ten years ago instead of twenty five or more years ago that is a different question i don't i don't think there is necessarily a clear cut off date that the court about the frequently one because haven't we allowed such conditions where there is a limitation a break let me just say someplace where there might be kids that's over brought i mean here we are in a courtroom in a law school and there's people under the age of eighteen so that's too broad however we have said that order frequently are frequent is and now other explanation and enough of the limitation on the limb and that it's not over broad why is this outside of that so in particular that the case primarily the sense that it's fields and fields is different in this case and at least three ways one of the condition actually is less restrictive in heels second the defenders history was more serious the known to frequent standard think that made it objective here we have is a condition that prohibits mr coffee from accessing anywhere within a thousand feet of places where children may frequently congregate which is a more  was changed to provide that mr campian must register for life in terms of what happened within the d p s process of course i don't know all that they know is that the change but according to the my reading of the texas state law that obligation to register should have ended under the way the texas does its registration analysis and the argument that the prosecutor has made that he is required to won't and we should go behind that in with our list of the issue whether we should consider a document the district court putting that aside your son did markham is we really are the ones who should be deciding that anyway because that's a matter of state law that that is only true if the court either vacates the condition or amended to explicitly require registration only in state law does as it stands it does not have that limitation so it would independently require registration even if texas they want to not that's why i think it's important to modify the condition back on the privileges i want to get this clear in my head just practically what is this doing to him that you think is to restrict to restrictive on him and not restrictive enough on the c it creates multiple radiuses of more than three hundred yards around places such as playgrounds arcade schools in addition to this extra addition of areas with children may frequently congregate in from volunteering directly with minors or living in a house with minors or working with minors instead what it does is it creates the zones of locations where he simply cannot cannot live and cannot work it's going to limit his employment opportunities is going that the district court at that time was imposing the condition based on state law it was more based on mr karr you know it's history and so it  frankly if the condition at the time it was not requested by the government they differ or imposed it we do think that there is a lawful basis behind the condition and that's why we're here defending it today  what so without the d p s document what what else on the record sort of definitively supports the government's assertion that mr company on is required to register as a sex offender in united states probation office to assist the district court at arriving at a citizen decision both in terms of a sentence of imprisonment as well as supervised release conditions in this case the probation officer reported at paragraph twenty five and forty five of the p s r that is required to register as a sex offender it is registered as a sex offender not was and i do agree with mr hoffa there also is a statement that texas d p s is evaluating his case a term in the length of his obligation to register but notably mr campian never objected instead whoa whoa whoa i'm actually not required to register as a is presumed to be correct unless it's challenged i think that in yes i think it is i'm trying to figure out i mean there's there's a factual element to this decision and there's also a legal element to this decision and so you know the p s r said something about the law that would difference but if they say something about the facts and it's not challenge then it's presumptively correct that's correct i think the i think that this case and specifically with the registration condition and the reason the government is standing here befor defending it today is mostly based on the facts and whether standing here today mr karr is required to register i said judge well there are two points one has the record existed before the district  the other component is the d p s sex offender registry website again that was not before the days for gore i mean i'm looking at forty five and it says the defendant is registered as a sex offender texas department public safety officials are in the process of evaluating the defense case determine the length of the defendant's obligation to register i don't see that as saying he's required to you it says he is and then this other that twenty five is along this detailed description of his off website or make a judicial notice you know about something like this wings and a thing you know person foremost a district court function in this issue kind of an emergence from two sources one of these records is a need do it be sensing is really you know just going to give some guidance and instruction but you seem like you and others have the wherewithal pull together that which is needed you know once a decision is made whether based on d v d s or otherwise there i s sure it certainly is not the or near a case that this court considers materials outside of the district court's record we have simply argued that it is delegated the statutory authority to make the initial determination that is subject to a challenge in travis county district court but this is purely a state law matter and so as we stand here today d p s has stated that he is under a lifetime registration of birth he can challenge it he can file lawsuits in travis county in if he does assume that he does and assume that he succeeds in convincing the state work that he is really under a team your registration department at that time he can come back to district court and the boss said then why would we not do the modification that you're opposing to hussle proposes which is that we say the condition is modified or we send it back to modify the condition so long as that's required by state law or you will register as a sex and offender in compliance with state law we're not opposed to this court of firming as modified guera does that and this is different this is different from modifying conditionals the cleaner and then all of this i mean one because i grieve that when discretionary decisions have to be made by district court we need to send it back but i'm also well aware that this records in texas are extremely overwhelmed with materially the same as in fields fields wasn't the first case to discuss the term free or these general terms it dates back to the paul case in two thousand rap and paul this stated it's impossible to give a list of exact locations if we can and they were green there with the first circuit opinion say that we can construe it in a common sense fields the condition was that the defendant was prohibited from residing or go into places where a minor or minors are know to frequent without prior approval the probation officer here approved in advance and brought in by the us probation office though save basically the same thing i mean the difference is of course that this condition at the one thousand foot radius and then there is t challenge where children may frequently car being that is no different then from as a practical matter then we're children who are known to everybody they say the same thing and in fact there's more support for this condition here than in fields because here there's no western of list of places that provides even more work and he knowledge which fields talked about so you're saying he's looking for guidance about whether he can go somewhere that he would look at you know  how do we make how does he navigate all of that as the sports case all talks about he poor head if he if he wanted to go say to mcdonald's because that's his favor restaurant and he was a correct if that were i mean we don't think that that would be a prohibited location but yes it is this forward a fine otherwise that true he put it so he couldn't even go to the driver of the donald's if it were determined that this playground is a place that children frequently we have argued in our brief that the way that this access should be considered is going with the intent to remain for a period of time it may be different from a drive through because he's not going there with the intent to remain for a period of time so that may suffice i want to say i did find it interesting that mr coffey at the beginning of his army described this condition as it prohibits him from going to it's not you just you're walking down the story you know that happens to be by a school and you're prohibited from doing it it's your boat to a place to sell the hope the hope point of this is compliance and impossible to provide a definitive list of every single place that the defendant is prohibited from going to so there needs to be some general terms we i think you know there's been a we're miners are known to frequent as a sport explained in fields is objective terms of we don't find any problem with that term that leads us back to access now having read all the cases is what i write it what about a movie theater so he's going to the r rated movie but next door is i don't know what the current kid movies but frozen part three or whatever and so that's clearly going to have a lot of kids are going to congregate there but he's not accessing that but he's within a thousand feet or three hundred yards of where the number is because he's in the theater next door watching the r rated movie where the kids aren't frequently congregating so what about that i think it me actually you know  it may depend on the time i haven't seen one using the movie theater as a hypothetical but i would imagine that it may it very well could be because children do frequent i know when heist why i used to hang out at a theater our friday night with my friend so it may end up prohibiting him but that is a permissible condition because as this court has hell in certain cases involving  product so there is some restriction on the liberty it may end up restricting him from going to the movie theater but that would be permissible if the court has no further question we as it were for the judge the work of the district court or is essentially a proportionality analysis both fields and when it lands make clear that the court needs to compare the breadth of the condition to its justification so for example a more serious history would justify any more a period that's true but it is also the first three years immediately after his release when he first integrating into the community which is when it's important he's finding a job and see the finding a job to me can be solved by the probation officer i tend to agree with the implicit discussion here that every time you want to go to mcdonald's call my probation officer seems a little bit much but the job you know if there's some concern about whether this job does or does not fit in here you go the probation officer i'd like to work at such and such approves it were done they they so it's seems like the big integration issues like where to live and where to get a job can be handled that way versus can i get a burger it done i'm sure not right i think the courts exchanges with opposing counsel illustrate how difficult it is to actually determine how broadly the condition of five out of five to specific location play theatres or fast food restaurants or something like back where kids maybe congregate there sometimes but not all the time and does this mcdonald's have a playgrounds and not have a playground and exactly how difficult it is if you determine which doesn't meet that a broader condition when it doesn't provide a clear example knowledge to mr  just briefly address the remedy on both conditions there are a couple of different things that floating around reminding modifying vacating friendly judgment so i support the review that i have primarily requested to depend on state laws require additional and state law does because either way it is mandatory condition that requires him to comply with state law so whether there is an extra condition that requires civically that you comply with the sex offender registration part of state law i that it actually for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment because the judge may could certainly have collateral consequences if the primary document that sets forth his obligations to him the probation officer who