ask the district court to modify the disputed supervised release condition should it prove to be onerous. 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e)(2). We need go no further. A sentencing court has significant discretion to custom-tailor the conditions of supervised release as long as those conditions are reasonably related to “(1) the defendant’s offense, history and characteristics; (2) the need for adequate deterrence; and (8) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” United States v. Mansur-Ramos, 348 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2), 3583(d); USSG § 5D1.3(b). This standard was satisfied in the case at hand. There was no error, plain or otherwise. See, e.g., United States v. Elwell, 984 F.2d 1289, 1298 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 . Despite the fact that the
holding that the fact that the defendant did not handle the drugs is not dispositive of his involvement in drug dealing holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that drug testing lay well within the district courts discretion given elwells past use and past dealing in drugs recognizing that use of curative or limiting instructions is within the district courts discretion holding evidence of similar drugrelated crimes five years in the past was well within the bounds of admission