425 F.3d 20, 22-23 (1st Cir.2005) (mandatory conditions); United States v. Tulloch, 380 F.3d 8, 13-14 & n. 8 (1st Cir.2004) (per curiam) (standard conditions). We also note that at least two other circuits have held that defendants have constructive notice for “special” conditions that become “recommended” when certain criteria are met. See, e.g., United States v. Torres-Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 937 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Asunción-Pimental, 290 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir.2002) (stating that, where specific factors necessary to make “special” conditions “recommended” are present, “these ‘special’ conditions are no different in practical terms from ‘standard’ conditions, that is, they are generally recommended”). But see United States v. Thomas, 299 F.3d 150, 155 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The financial disclosure condition imposed by
holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense holding that the failure to articulate  orally that conditions  5d13d2 and 3 apply to a defendants sentence of supervised release does not create a conflict with the judgment imposing these conditions recognizing that probation officers are mandated to enforce a sentencing courts terms and conditions of supervised release holding that conditions announced for the first time in a written judgment that govern more than the basic administration of supervised release violate a defendants right to be present at sentencing