please the court and counsel elizabeth pollock on behalf of the defendant appellant jeffrey miller and in this case we have a quite interesting jurisdictional argument that is not normally been part of our supervised release cases and what happened was mr miller was sentenced in december of two thousand and fourteen there were improper conditions of supervision that were in as part of that judgment you file an appeal he brief the appeal and then while the appeal was pending the government filed a motion modify the very conditions of supervision that were the subject of his brief and the district court relied on this court's decision in raymer and granted that motion which affectively mooted the brief that had been previously filed so this court asked us to brief the issue of whether or not the district court had the jurisdiction to do that and our position is that the district court absolutely did not have the jurisdiction to do that regardless of this court's prior rulings in raymer and taylor and the reason is that raymer and taylor flies in the face of decades of supreme court precedent recognizing the fact that when an issue is specifically on appeal the district court is divested of jurisdiction to what is better that you can always will back  right so language on if it had been this what if this had been a sentence that included no time in prison just a period of supervised release and maybe it was too many drug tests maybe it was anything that happens in supervised release cases the task that we have is to figure out what this word any time or phrase any time means in the statute and it's difficult to think of a policy reason to prevent the district court from fixing things to mr miller's satisfaction if he didn't like what the just report did when it modified here you know by adding knowingly present a public safety risk these various things that the court acted i don't see a peep from mr miller that he doesn't like those changes and he can always go back again anyway the changes do comply with with their decision right this court that modified those conditions and found them to be improper however the real issue here is that when a supervised release condition is imposed improperly this court's case law starting with thompson in capice has found that a defendant is entitled to a full reset and seeing hearing on those issues and usually we have said now that the added complication for you is this the district court said when it made that modification that it was not of time to change any other aspect of mr miller's sentence so we actually have a statement from the district court judge about what that statement was made without the benefit of a full resigns and hearing and so you know that the procedural posture of these cases is that if and because of these conditions there should be a full rebalancing of the need for imprisonment versus supervision and by allowing the district court to modify the very conditions that are the subject of the appeal while the appeal is and you know i understand why you may want that although it does seem a little quixotic but i don't see why that is enough to take the district or its power to handle supervised  lease away from it the statute can certainly override the general rule the jurisdiction exists only in one quarter of the time but the statute doesn't do that that the nature of the of the statute says that the district court may amend these conditions at any time but this court has previously held that at any time language does not necessarily preclude the jurisdictional rule that while an appeal is pending the district court should not rule on this question before us you know is it sensible in this particular circumstance to allow both courts to be doing something it's not uncommon by the way if we take an a if there's an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction under section twelve ninety two a one then things can be going on in the just or court and things can be going on in this court at the same but the things that are going on in the district court are different than the things that are going on in the appellate court and that they don't they may be technically different but i wouldn't say that they don't have some bearing sometimes but they don't overlap they're not the exact i would not think the district judge going to have anything to do with the case with regard to supervised release following release from prison that was a parole thing that the judge didn't have to worry about all of a sudden that gets amended now the judges gets involved in it this is a and that really doesn't come into effect until the a term of imprisonment or roll stars roll anymore release  and the thought of the courts back then did not think about judges having anything to do with post or announcement of sounds so you're saying that the bill griggs decision couldn't possibly have a so much better than i i understand what you're saying and there have been more recent supreme court decisions though that have addressed this issue that cite to the great decision that have applied the same circumstances and for example you know you have the different descriptions of it jurisdictional statute versus what is a claims processing or timing statute and the recent decisions in two thousand and five and two thousand and twelve that the supreme court have indicated that this type of statute this is not an issue about the which which time it says that a court can amend it any time but that's a time limitation so it's not giving the district court a limit about when they can or cannot make these changes it's saying ok if you can make the changes you can do it at any time  rule that you can't litigate what is currently pending on an appeal that when it in the district court while that appeals pending it's a small limitation because you know appeals don't pend forever the date that's what i was going to say they could easily spend for a year or you know from from the date that we docket a case at the seven circuit until the date that a final opinion comes out it's very often a year and sometimes  than that depending on how hard the cases and so on so the position that you're arguing for that the supervised release conditions are frozen until the end of that period i mean i'm not sure systematically i helpful to there now where they're not frozen and so they are that you they can't be changed in your view until the court of appeals if the defendant has a challenge that on appeal so if there is no up challenge and this is what happened in the taylor  when taylor was pending the appeal challenge his conviction and challenge the jury verdict there was no challenge to the supervision conditions which i was i'm so vain i sense because your theory has to be that the full authority over the case moves from the district general principle is that only one quarter of the time has authority over a case it's not issue by issue that it's not issue by issue but the case law does state specifically that you're talking about the issues that are the subject of the appeal so there are other statutes that give a district court authority to make certain changes that are separate and apart from what is currently pending on appeal but the case law is very clear in the supreme court that if there is something that is being addressed at present by another court it cannot then also be addressed by a second court in this case sentence any aspect of the sentence except conditions of supervised release that wouldn't necessarily effect the district court's ability to deal with the conditions but that flies in the face of there are a same argument they should get a full recent saying this court  said that the sentence the judgment is made up of multiple components if you fact one you might affect the other and that's why this court's found in certain instances to remand for the recency if you appeal the term of imprisonment that might affect the conditions of supervised release and so i don't think under the defense's theory the district court would be able to touch the conditions of supervised release in that instance and then you have a problem where what happens if the defendant violates one of the conditions that he's challenging on do you go to this court do you go to the district court who procedurally handles it does the mandate have to go back down and i think that that does present logistical problems but let me take a step back and this isn't an issue of first impression for this court it seems like the defense at this point is conceding that raymer and miller control and i think they do i think any distinguishing factors are relevant as we discussed our briefs and so what mr miller now asked argue is there is a compelling reason for this court to overturn precedents and create a circuit split he hasn't shown a compelling reason as well i mean i guess where he thinks he has done so is if we have gone down the wrong path on a jurisdiction issue those are fundamental issues right now and there was some concern expressed by these one judge in this court that maybe we were respecting the supreme court's greater policing of the line between jurisdiction matters and things that simply go to claim processing those are important things they can be attended to when somebody makes a proper objection but they're not quite the same and so you know we ought to fix it if we've done something wrong jurisdictionally sure i understand that point but this court hasn't done anything wrong what mr miller mainly relies upon is that doctrine created in gregg's which is the judicially created doctrine of the fish and c and it certainly has its place in time this court found that this was not the place and time w jurisdiction is a congressional mandate a congressional language saying at any time you can modify these conditions saying time is going to trump the judicially created rule in a wire it is you understand at any time to have like brackets after it  at any time when this court has jurisdiction just because i understand it to be true for virtually everything right because it doesn't say that your honor and we cited other rules in our brief that do say that there's no federal rule civil procedure sixty a which talks govern these court know how to say that and they didn't and in this instance they said broad and unlimited at any time what was the status after judge miller modified those  fifty number which is whether the district court has jurisdiction and then there's the original can appeal the fourteen appeal that is moot because mr miller now has a new conditions are you arguing move ness or appeal waiver well we're keen thirty six forty four well if this court continues its precedents and finds that the district court did have jurisdiction the new conditions control they should be affirmed in the second appeal and the first appeal becomes moot if this court does find a compelling reason to overturn its breast and create a circuit split then we go back to the original conditions and i think mr miller runs into another problem there and that there is the appellate waiver  just recently affirming campbell which we've referenced are twenty eight j letter that the appellate waivers are clickable in these instances mr miller's conditions don't involve the same concerns of adkins they don't involve first amendment conditions they don't involve conditions that are so unreasonable alleviate that no one can know what they mean so you know ultimately if this court does overturn its president mr miller stuck with the original conditions that he didn't want in the first instance whereas if this court continues here on a wrong into being but we do entertain the battles on supervised release conditions unless this court has any other questions we would rest on a refund all other issues and ask for that long convoluted resolution that i just went through about affirming and then dismissing is moot all right thank you very much thank you and i think you have another minute following just want to make one more brief note on the jurisdictional issue the government is treating  as though they are these well thought out presidential opinions that this this panel should not then reverse but the concurrence and taylor noted by judge easterbrook said those those appeals that jurisdictional issue was taken up so as planted by the court without any briefing without any argument they were not  as well thought out for example as mccue decision which specifically says a district court can fix certain things about one aspect of a case while another aspect is on appeal but there is nothing that allows a district court to change the precise feature of a disposition that is under appellate review that's our position we'd ask the court to find that the district court did not have jurisdiction and then to further the relief preston are free thank you thank you very much thanks to both counsel will take the case und