the question here is whether or not the district court had the jurisdiction to revoke mr vargas who supervised release and because of the court not have jurisdiction i would ask this court today kate and remand so that my client can be terminated from  word warrant and word has a loaded meaning the fourth amendment clearly and unequivocally provides no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation congress use applies a person is no longer on supervised release and he does have all the constitutional protections that he would as a as a normal citizen and that's what makes the government's case is that they recently said in their june  correct however we're talking about a jurisdictional statute where the i understand what we're talking about but i still don't understand why we jump ahead the status of the person in fact contemplated and demanded by the jurors directional statute being with probable cause will so we're not nothing we would decide here as i understand it would change the probable cause requirement the issue is whether it has to be under oath and what you're saying is warrant or summons means congress intended to import the fourth amendment into it before congress wrote the statute and codified it were these warrants or these prevent whatever they're called forget what they're called and what their whatever where certain people on probation parole surprise rings may be subject to searches of their homes even without with the last without a warrant without probable cause in a case based on reasonable suspicion if that's the case certainly a judge based on hague those individuals were under no criminal signs at all and there was some we just can't find out there where officers went to one of the individuals homes and it's based on a porn sounding name i believe believe judge fisher indicated that the fact that the trend and after the bench warrant has been timely issued is no longer a supervised release deserves no matter at this point because this crash was bench warrants violation words are routinely issued prior to expiration of the term of supervised release at that point judges have no idea which warrants are going to be executed that day the following day or which warrants relatively quickly that's of major the sumptuousness makes the statute has jurisdiction to court on the faces of reasonably necessary so it isn't as if sort of well you know when we get around two or three months is fine how do we know that i mean congress didn't say when reasonable is reasonably necessary and so there's some burden on the government here to move you know this person being yanked back out of civilian life by letting the court continue to have jurisdiction so what's the reasonable necessary component here that we're supposed to be looking at well your hon that that is indicated in garrett and gary that was apparently talking garrett was talking about somebody who was stuck off in a state prison and they were saying look you know with reasonable reasonably necessary we'll construe it  say that this guy is over in the state slammer we're not going to go through all of this and pull him back he's not going anywhere this is a person who was out on the streets don and now you're saying well you know we load it takes eight months a year to go out and you're saying this is in its infancy so i guess that my hypothetical isn't too farfetched that because of the pressures on the southern district and i don't be little those pressures qualifier as binding law that means it doesn't make any difference how long you delay that is the government delays before executing the warrant it's not until he is actually picked up even if we look at the period pre execution it simply wouldn't be unreasonable and there is no requirement the probation officers help people get arrested there's some indication of probation officer some suggestion by the sense that they should