and straightforward case of statutory interpretation of a couple sentences in eighteen u s c thirty five eighty three hi i think it's a pretty important case though nonetheless and i appreciate the court taking it on expedited briefing not just from miss campbell who suffered i think a pretty significant injustice but because this is a case of first impression for this court it impacts every federal defendant who ends up on supervised release this is a statute which sets a significant jurisdictional limit for district courts in adjudicated petitions for supervised release revocation and constrains the potential what i guess i would call serious mischief that can be worked when the probation officer decides to do what happened in this case which is to wait until the very end of a term of supervised release that had gone without a single allegation of any violation then make what i call the placeholder allegation of some simple violations in this case three days before the expiration of the term and then prior to the hearing on those allegations go back look back three years to the very beginning of the term and add twenty two additional allegations that were factually completely unrelated to the original ones so that by the time as campbell's hearing rose she was looking at twenty five allegations of violations rather than three the district court in fact did not sustain all of the original three but only two of them so the difference for mr campbell and for anybody else in this situation is that instead of looking at two allegations of violations of supervised release she's looking at twenty five and i think we can look at this case to begin with simply as an exercise in reading the statutory language and i think we can put the interpretive question for the court fairly simply what does the word such mean or such a such a violation does it any and i've been thinking over this in my mind as a lifetime speaker of english i don't think there is a single context in which the term such as a violation means any violation that is you know some pages six six and seven of my opening brief the court may engage in a hearing after the expiration of a term of supervised release and then the ball the text here if before its expiration a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation so it's that term such a violation well what does it mean it means we claim i think in this is the most natural reading of the text in the reading most in keeping with the purpose of supervised release and thirty five eighty three i and with simply doing justice in this in every similar case that's going to follow that language such a violation has to refer back to whatever violation was alleged prior to the expiration of supervised release in a warrant or summons it does not open up a door where the probation officer may allege one violation at any time during the term then wait till the term expires and alleges many additional ones as as he or she chooses the case that the government relies on is this neuron ho case from the fifth circuit  can you give me the lay of the land as to where the other circuits are in this interpretation sure you are the only other circuit with a published opinion on point is the second circuit and that case is called edwards and both parties discuss that in our briefs the edwards alleged any violation prior to the expiration of the term you may go back and allege any additional ones for a post expiration hearing the edwards court the second circuit said well we're going to impose this factually related condition so the edwards court says that the court does retain jurisdiction to hear allegations of violation that were made after the term of supervised release expired so long as they are factually related related to the other things that they have elected him but they are right now yes that's correct on the on the edwards factually related test i think miss campbell clearly comes out the winner here the allegations that were timely alleged were that she had failed to report ownership of a car and that she had failed to report to her probation officer to a probation officer that she had reported that car a stolen the third allegation which was not sust ed had to do with a line of credit for another car so both of those you know all three of those initial timely allegations involve this transactions involving a police car with said they were so great that it two transactions had to do with breaking that condition of having interaction with the police one of them that was one condition the other condition was ownership of the vehicle of substantial financial transactions then the conditions with respect to the casino winnings which went all the way back three years to the beginning of the of the term the alleged violation there was felix failure to report income there was absolutely no meaning thirty five eighty three i provides jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegation that is alleged timely prior to expiration in a warrant or summons and not others that's the rule that i would articulate for this court that i would ask this court to articulate today however with respect to the factually related rule i think as a you know as a fallback position i think it's not an unreasonable rule i don't think it's required by the t we do not find it necessary to decide what we would do in the case of purely unrelated factual allegations right on the case before us said the edwards court we see new allegations that are factually related and we think in that situation the court does have jurisdiction so i don't know if you would call that a penumbra of the statutory text or what i think that this statutory text is quite clear such a violation looks back to the violation alleged timely  ground even though he didn't know the extent of it i believe that's correct your honor and i would refer the court to my reply brief where i tried to get into as much detail as possible about that testimony as to exactly when he was aware he testified that he was aware of these in early february and then he ran a search as he put it so he you know he was aware of something i think he should and could have been aware of the details when he claimed he wasn't aware of the details of the break with the petitions like a good find out what was going on base is what he did right that maybe your honor that's mean that that's why i called it essentially a placeholder violation and what we're arguing in this case is that that is not consistent with the intent purpose or language of the statute to wait till a term and file a placeholder violation so that you then kind of leave the door open then go back and start investigating a whole bunch of other things and filed you know an additional twenty two twenty three allegations as happened here and just for the record those allegations are she f good morning your honour's i may please the court tom or bar check on behalf of the united states morning i'd like to start first with a question that judge wardlaw asked regarding the contours in the landscape regard of the law regarding fourth circuit implemented in the eleventh circuit in pressley both embrace the reading as well as the district where within this circuit the district of arizona court found that the reading that the government advances here is a reasonable reading of the third in the amended petition filed on march twenty second twenty seventeen alleging conduct that occurred within the period of defendant supervised release where there was a timely filed petition summons holding otherwise would run contrary to the government to the plain language interpretation of the statute embraced by the neuronal court and to other circuit courts and the and it would also work specifically in these in the summary of violation report of the supplemental report i believe the probation officer said that he was aware of those allegations from twenty fourteen however the investigation was ongoing and as this court has recognized in the past a probation officer has significantly way to try to work with an individual defendant to make sure that and to try to make sure that they are rehabilitated and to keep them and you know have it have a potential allegation that they may file against them but make sure that there's nothing else more significant happening and in this case the at the time the riverside i believe is the riverside police department did not file charges and so there's this court has recognized there is significant discretion for a probation officer  so if we ruled have a lot of questions about this and you are now talking policy obviously the if we rolled in your favor wouldn't encourage for patient officers to become aware close to finishing up their term your honor i don't know if that's exactly what happened in this case i think is his defense counsel's referred to there were these three other allegations from one from twenty fourteen i believe the other one twenty fifteen twenty fifteen  those allegations at the time when he when he learned of them he made the probation officer it's not on the record but the probation officer may or may not have thought this court's attention at this moment and then as he was getting close to the end of supervision he may have learned of these other allegations and that's exactly the type of behavior that if it's being concealed which in this case does have to rely on the honesty of the defendant they have to have a relationship it's not a police officer you know  suspect relationship it's supposed to be a relationship based on trust and the probation office have these monthly supervision reports which they require the defendant to sign swear to the penalty of perjury and say that what they're get telling to the probation officer is truthful and th a an ongoing dialogue about what's happening what's happening in life to make sure that when they're done when they're finished with their supervision they can be successfully reintegrated into society that at the end that's what happened in this case particularly in this case are these facts for the defendant been engaged in fraud fraud and deceitful conduct and i think that probation officer and probation officers generally should have an interest in making sure that when a individual is released back into society without supervision that that individual has rehabilitated the what do you simply did was he file these allegations as the placeholders you were posing counsel say as to the give further investigate the other stuff that was going on your honor i'm not that's not exactly clear in the record just the record says it looks like what he did and you know i think that also is an important sign of that we want to create here which is we don't want to file allegations that at the time you're not completely aware if there is a truthful allegation yet and this case i think the supplemental report regarding the march twenty second allegation say that that the probation officer went and sought the records from the casino he did not have them i believe at the time of the filing so we don't that it's probably creates a perverse incentive to have probation officers file have all the records that you've been doing this what's going on and talk to her about it during her term he may have been able to get the information from the casinos very quickly especially if she power to revoke supervision and that personal jurisdiction is the supreme court has said there's there's two elements of jurisdiction subject matter jurisdiction of personal jurisdiction the personal jurisdiction that is activated once there's a  lot more about supervised release than i have to because i've never had the good fortune appeared just record judge but my question is this if a violation is disclose to the person being supervised would it tend to turn out that there's a better chance they would mend their ways and to correct their defendant with the allegations related to the vehicles and the defendant denied those allegations and then in january of seventeen proceeded to file yet another false monthly supervision of four is found by the allegations of stand by judge a panel two cases counsel were first to forget the district court and the district court of arizona i am not forgetting that your honor both of these cases the brennan case and the presently case brennan is from the fourth circuit presently is from the eleventh circuit in both of those cases the warrant or summons at issue was filed before the expiration of supervised release neither of those cases have anything to do with this issue i read those cases with surprise when i saw them in the government's brief i brought them here today and i can read starting from brandon this is page fifty five of the granite opinion cited  in our briefs the warrant in this case was issued in june two thousand and five and executed in october two thousand and six clearly before the expiration of brennan supervised release the presently case from the eleventh circuit i'm reading from page thirteen forty seven of the opinion the summons in warrant for each aimed at getting presley back before the district court for a supervised release hearing both were issued before term of supervised release was over so on the question and i think this is a very important question for this court what is the pastor of the other circuits we really are in the posture as i laid it out in our opening brief we have the fifth circuit opinion we have the second circuit opinion from edwards that's it the jurisprudential landscape here is quite open and this court needs to say something about this is a matter of first impression we do not have a situation where there is you know it preponderance of circuits that have decided it really isn't with respect to judge gould's question about supervised release i would say yes wholeheartedly and unambiguous lee the purpose of supervised release is to maintain a continuing relationship with the supervisee to make their behavior better to adjust their behavior continuously it is not a game in which the probation officers goal is to hide violations store them up and then pull away the football on the last day that is absolutely contrary to what policy congress every district court that supervises releases wants to see out of supervised release program