so i'm having some difficulty understanding how given the state of the record and the state of the government's position of whether something had occurred i don't see how a warrant could was right and so are facts and the reason i was asking i know it's not our case but i was just trying to figure out you know given when they tumbled to what they thought was a problem how they would have fixed it at that point obviously they wanted the ninety days because i thought it was going to take them some time but i mean it's not our case here but i'm just trying to figure out if if we agree with you because that's what the statute says you know are we for as you because your client didn't know what he allegedly did wrong in connection with a thousand dollars of the feared when you examine the bank statement but the probation officer had reviewed that previously and there were any problem with it  reports and the only basis for it were sitting back a statement attaching bank statements instead of filling out the form but mr president had done that for the entire period of his probation without any indication that we don't know exactly what it is but there's no evidence that the in kind of thousand dollars was actually income that should have been reported it may have been you know that's probably for some other person as there is no evidence that mr talking to him you know knowingly or intentionally made that  you know improper it was not a full reporting what what what did she have to find in this case to do something about what she had to find knowledge somehow so you can she has to have found that he i know when the expiration was and i know there was no warrant issued before the expiration and there was no summons issued before the expiration so it's like that's all she wrote it's over what am i missing you honor in  imagine why not i mean they have a strong suspicion that this defendant is a real major kwok ripping off people for millions of dollars to be stashing in the caymans that evidently they didn't have the evidence prior to the expiration of the term of probation so i just don't see why it's not over and if they actually develop the evidence to support their their thinking and then just indict him for the new crimes you want to if the court wishes to make that clear basically would be playing because you still haven't provided evidence that he's stealing the millions of dollars and stashing the money in the cayman's and as for it not be interesting i don't know how criminal context well you are i mean you have anything i understand completely what you're saying and we see that where they say well really you're talking jurisdiction but what you really mean is cause of action that's in a civil context do you have any criminal case where if it complies with the latter part of c it says if that's try to it's expiration i mean you're asking us in an extra to actual way to ignore the latter part of the statute i think you would say in an extra textual way don't apply the five year statute of limitations to crimes if you suspect that a person has committed a crime but you don't have the evidence yet i mean that's that's your argument there to do what exactly they do nothing to the person if you can't if you can't prove a person committed a crime within the time of the statute of limitations if you don't have enough to charge them you don't charge him and he may go free even though he's committed  if you can't get a warrant or summons based on probable cause before the end of his probation you just have a lot going in the you know you can summon a grand jury and indict him well this is the underlying conduct here know anything it's just we're going to keep this up for decide in order to show was issued january twenty second two thousand and thirteen the expiration of the probation was october twenty sixth two thousand and twelve your honor my record i believe the timing of that is not accurate and tell me what was accurate ok it's this is s t r for probation officer if you did show cause notice let's just say we could extra textually imagine something if and we might even be and i'm not sure we would be in a different situation if the court said ok i'm going to actually extend based upon this i'm going to the time for probation but he did that before it expired we might be in a different situation would you agree that would be different than the situation we're in now yes but everything talks about prior to expiration when you say look at the statute as a full i can't figure out where you want me to look to get the answer you're telling me that you like what i'm saying you from asia it's not a big deal you know that that really a little hard pressed to find where the close enough rule comes from either in the statute or otherwise i don't get why the government is so desperate it's why the judge and the government went along with this program of extending his probation they were investigating the nazis was to investigate whether or not he had violated probation it wasn't a whether or not there was sufficient this that rules are jurisdictional is it allows the court to retain jurisdictions after a probation says iron so you think that we should say well there's jurisdiction unless you're stiction and in this case jurisdictional so that if a court suspects wrongdoing even though the government can't prove it and if congress is said the court doesn't have the power to do anything about it the court should nevertheless do something about what we're saying is we because that's what the statute says the court has no power but you're saying well extra texturally with us was saying that the district court attempted to keep the probation proceedings going they obviously you know if if if the court hadn't continued that hearing for five days in which the reason why the court did that in the record is not clear obviously a lot cleaner but basically what the court was trying to do is basically  probation office says oh my gosh i've got this information really he should not be out and about at this point he needs to be on probation because we think there's hanky panky going on with there be any remedy bookends so once your probation expires if they discover something after they can't go back you're saying right yes if they didn't do anything before you your construction of the statute that we reviewed this for playing error as i understand you correctly yes ron so nobody objected so we see whether it's fair basically is that your argument whether on the third prong of playin well the third prong i mean assuming the court finds that they're in fact was clear obvious error in this case the government is prepared to concede on the third point that it prejudiced the defendant i mean there would have been no proceedings after that there would have been nothing left but on i think on the fourth  do you how do you think that to the court and says this is what we allege that didn't happen here as i'm sure as i'm seeing it the court is essentially saying you know the statute really doesn't matter what we really what really counts here  guy may have done something wrong and we just kind of want to keep this open i find that wallace i really do i'm i'm kind of shocked at the government's position what am i missing first i want to distinguish between two things that have kind of i think gotten a little muddy up here there was the original case against the defendant he was convicted metion that's what this is about is whether or not to continue to cetera et cetera there's some discussion in the briefs also that around the time that the court with considering extending the probation the government essentially had a new grounds under what circumstances can the can the government continue the term of the probation the statute the thirty five sixty five she sets out the basis for doing so and it refers to the fact that the court will have the power to do this provided there's does certain things and the proviso is if prior to the expiration a warrant or summons has been issued says is not what it reads to say it's it's just kind of a amorphous the number of may i use that were issues that we just are supposed to follow is that what you're saying your honor the she could have said look this this guy's probation expires in two weeks so if you want to do something have that i'm open you know to hearing her or whatever but i actually extra text roy i don't know how i could write an opinion that's what i think we could say is we have this this language the court interpreted it this way there was no binding authority at that time saying that was improper  some reason to question what the statute means but we've been hammering at you now for quite a while to find out why power doesn't mean no power doesn't mean nope doesn't mean what it says and you haven't given us a reason well what we would ask for statute so that's what it means and it means what it says another way if you want to extend probation abide by the terms of the statute and if we were to give that advice and i guess that would satisfy your concern for correct then it would be truly textual and it would be binding and then everybody would know what the rules are just in case they didn't before right and then in the future case clearly there would be it would be plainer but in this case first case for each particular one of the thousands and thousands of crimes it would only apply in the second case if you're the published opinion that means what it says i take to the question point and you know we obviously we're not that we're not the o