t 60 (9th Cir.2006) (determining objection to special condition for plethysmograph testing and compelled medication requires the government to show condition is reasonably necessary to promote § 3553(a) goal and for the district court to perform a “thorough inquiry”); United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117, 124, 126-27 (2d Cir.2005) (applying abuse of discretion review and holding record failed to support special condition limiting father from visiting son); United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2004) (concluding district court abused its discretion in ruling on defendant’s objection when imposing mandatory medication special condition because it failed to make findings on a medically-informed record); United States v. Warren, 186 F.3d 358, 366-67 (3d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the above reasons, we
holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding the trial court must make findings adequate to support a closure holding district court must make explicit factual findings or record must contain evidence to support special condition to restrict travel outside united states holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that appellate court must defer to all implied factual findings supported by record