raising his hand so you'll stop what you're doing when that happens so our first case is united states versus harris not have jurisdiction over the second revocation of mr harris was a national term of supervised release because the fourth attendant in this case which was the subject of that second refutation was not filed until after  mr harris had already been revoked the first time if this court however finds that the district court had jurisdiction over the second revocation the trial court sentences violated the  he was serving his  jurisdiction to hear violations when the petitions for rep revoking the supervised release is filed before the expiration of the term so the question becomes when does the term end  think that if there is a complete separate revocation hearing an order and then the court later finds out about conduct that amounts to a basis to revoke better occurred before that revocation so is no question is completely separate revocation and you will have a snow or a second revocation for conduct ever occurred before the revocation is a court powerless to deal with th no but it did and i'm to you then doesn't mean anything again them to the petition to you art of the but vacation guidelines a whole scheme an addendum to a petition is a completely separate the the what it is what the allegations are i believe that that controls the analysis here and that's the distinction between mr harris this case and mr winfield's case because the allegation that mr harris had been indicted  on federal charges was what the subject of the fourth petition is what trolls this case the fact that the defendant here mr harris was serving part of his original supervise release release part might be over with but the firm of supervisors release was wrong go to the it had some effect here and so that the johnson where it found that it had some effect to the extent that because it would only go no your honor but the johnson court wasn't looking at the situation that we have now they were just trying to determine if the whole term that was originally imposed a supervised release had not yet expired could the court put mr johnson back on supervi under johnson and winfield it would seeing fairly clear at least in the circuit most of the others that the term of supervisor release even when there's a revocation is still growing so the court would appear to have authority while that term is still extent and in this case that's when the court acted you claim this is a separate revocation perceiving the song going right now so you you claim there were two revocation proceedings in this case yes so i want to be sure i understand your position if you are and that is not my position it has to be it has to be if we have jurisdiction why is he not subject to if we have jurisdiction and you say this is a second that was a requirement respect that's just the fashion of that case well respectfully disagree your honor especially given thirty five eighty three i which contemplates that the jurisdiction for the court can extend past the expiration of the term initial term i is filed before the expiration of the term going to bring us in mr brooks situation he had the court had revoked his his supervised release and allowed him to self surrender to serve the term of imprisonment that was to brooks we have the term ended at the revocation and i'm brown we have a limit on winfield i believe we're in brown v the the limit was the new term of supervision began so we're talking about separate my rule would propose propose a person centive for people to come in and plead to technical violations in order to avoid the court finding out about more serious violations and i think that that belies the reality of how supervised release function is exactly the one of this case failing to report early on that you spoke to a police officer and they were trying to clear the decks and you couldn't blame for doing that under your theory i think there's two issues here or one is that the reality is that a lot of people who commit technical violations there's no petition for supervised release filed until it gets to a more grave situation the court is given a no action report the court reviews it in if it becomes a sufficient problem the court at that point then act release is revoked and given percent followed by another term of supervised release and then violates that second term supervised release they don't get credit for the time that was given for the violation of the first term of supervised re good morning your honors and may please the court you mr harris is case the district court properly had jurisdiction to educate the petitions and agenda on supervised release based on a combination of two major legal principles first is the supreme court's case of johnson which we've discussed at length here as it's been interpreted by other for courts particular in the fourth circuit winfield and j several important things one in analyzing congress's use of the term instead of terminate it observed in hell that there is something about the term of supervision that continues exist so while mr harris was serving that thirty day period of a revocation sentence his original term of supervision was ongoing it was existant couple that principle with the statutory authority under thirty five eighty three which says that the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a later date after supervision violations that may have occurred during that term provided that a summons or a warrant issued during that time so in this case there were there was the original petition that was filed in september and that was based on information provided to the probation officer let me let me ask this why does your claim fall the basis of jewish diction is it that this incident occurred before the court first took up this revocation matter that the fact the operative facts that you claim the court has in this case arises from the fact that the operative facts for the basis for this second hearing a rose before the first hearing your honor they arose before the terminations of the original term of supervision which would be all that would be before the first hearing that would be the completion of the revocation sentence so you may have some i don't understand the court's course not i'm a straightforward question i hope i think you answered it you think the court has jurisdiction for this current matter which is the second hearing on revocation because the incident occurred before the first r you think they are in this case and i think the court did then sort of the next i think maybe there was a year time difference but reason i'm asking you that is that it seems to me your theory of jurisdiction is that just as you stated an incident occurred before the initial hearing and now this relates this hearing that we're reviewing right now relates back and i think that seems correct and you say that leads to i think the obvious conclusion there is one revocation maximum of three years and five years total why it doesn't that maximum now apply your honor i don't know that you can't have more than one revocation for the same which you said but you but you said you had one in this case that's what you just tell me the just to be clear during mister during mister harris a second revocation hearing the parties acknowledged on the record that we were referring with this that sentence was referring to the original term of supervision so we were we were discussing the original term of supervision i don't know your honor it seems it seems to me that you can have more revocations of the same term and no you can't no no no  cannot say you can't oh no i think you can because you could have a violation and then you could put him in jail for a month and extend a supervised release and then he commits another he or she commits another violation after that and you can call him back and you certainly can have multiple revocations but the statute looks to stash story maxus force punishment for any such revocation and i think you said in this case there is one here and at that hearing the court sentences the individual to sixty days and at the end of the sixty days there is no more soup if the petition for the for the second incident is then filed after the completion of that term of prison is their jurisdiction in that circumstance to entertain occurrence of the incident it would also seem to have to be or based on the continuing duration of the initial revocation sentence that the original supervised questions is not only is it the incident the violation has to occur before the completion of the revocation sentence but the petition has to be filed in either a summons or warrant which issue now there are some factual situations that can make things pretty interesting for example say a defendant committed one violation had a revocation hearing it and received a revocation sentence of perhaps two years or maybe even three years and while he is serving while he is serving that three year revocation sentence a new crime is discovered that happened also while the defendant was on that same original term of supervision if you read if he read thirty five eighty three and the courts that have interpreted the revisions of the protect act any such revocation so long as a petition and a war issued during that lengthy revocation sentence the court could impose another step toward a max a second revocation on what is the still the original term of supervision with a long revocation sentence a limitation being the law that's described in a thirty five eighty three age which limits once sense revocation sentences are imposed any follow on supervision will supervision in the factual scenario that i described now you know the situation you do wait wait wait wait one second now there's no question you can but that's not what you are saying is is happened in this case each day there was one revocation in this case you can a question you can have multiple revocations of one row one supervised release centers you absolutely can but you say it is case and i think the factual scenario presents because of how the incident operative facts occur i don't think you are incorrect i think there is one revocation that's what you want to you want to change then or do you think in this case hypothetical but if you want  point particularly before coming into court but it's my recollection that judge payne used the term revoke following both hearings that it doesn't that doesn't really matter does it what he what he term he used doesn't really you don't see any difference in a member two and just a new petition well it doesn't make a difference if practically it doesn't make a difference because all of the allegations  said that the district court has the full spectrum maximum of four cents to impose for any such revocation so for multiple revocations of the court can impose the statutory maximum each and every time that doesn't mean that a defendant is going to be subject to an endless cycle of a reinforcer ration for the same on offense supervision the amount of supervision as i mentioned earlier is counted by thirty five eighty three age so in you know the defendant has the appellant has suggested that we need to add the times and with regard to the sentence judge hoyt i would say no we don't have to aggregate the times aggregation petition in reality differently probation officers call the papers that they file to bring charges that someone has violated supervised release different things some probation officers call it  but there's only one statutory maximum and for that it turn to winfield at page one twelve the court talked about the authority to impose multiple revocations but limited to the statutory max so because all of the conduct that's alleged to have occurred happened during mr here is his first term of supervised release there's one statutory maximum for all the sentences as it relates to the jurisdictional issue as well want to point the court's attention to eighteen imprisonment almost always there some present with a revocation but maybe there's also supervised release to follow but as it relates to the government's argument about the rule to bring people back for things that occurred before the revocation but were not found later if we follow that rule we end up with a situation where the if there's a class a felony the person is sentenced to five years of imprisonment for the revocation the court then would have jurisdiction to bring  this case and we thank the court for its time