how does this court have jurisdiction over this it seems to me that judge real on june tenth denied your motion to be really from probation you didn't fire notice of appeal until july seventh or eighth now you filed a motion for reconsideration but i think under i think it's the record forty three judge real road on the top of that then i know just cause or no good cause it says the nine zero just because and he's denying your motion for reconsideration and that's not what you're appealing from the feeling from our view the motion for an order for discharge from probation and that  be mr no not just answer my question in terms of time is it within the requisite number of days from june tenth the notice of appeal was filed that the notice of appeals filed in july and i'm sorry i don't know the answer because i'd have to look to see whether or not this would be considered a civil matter just giving that mr reynolds sixty days or it would still be considered because it's a question was an abuse of discretion or non but if it's timely with respect to the underlying thing we can look at so it does make a difference as to how we can look and i think it is certainly  the right to listen to this case the question that would be before the court for this issue of double jeopardy would be whether mr president and the period from one thousand nine hundred eight until two thousand and three was in fact on both district court intended to run the probation on camps twelve and thirteen consecutively to the rafters because of the way he phrased it i can see an argument that  the court when given and direct an opportunity to say so so that's what he intended and that goes to the second issue which is whether or not whether or not the consecutive was supposed to be consecutive the court's intent which actually goes to the second issue with regard to the double jeopardy same question is not i don't believe so because whether or not the court intended for probation to run after parole  necessarily resolve the question as to whether or not mistakenly possibly but in fact mr reynolds was placed on probation so that if the probation department were agreements that were signed by mr reynolds and in fact by the probation office officer in which they were specifically called them conditions of probation and supervised release well it seems to me then the question comes if th judge intended that he served parole first and then probation then the payments that he made during parole that was supposed to be during probation it seems to me there's the question comes down to whether the government has somehow now is staffed from claiming that he wasn't also on probation or if not then he paid some money early and he needs to be given credit for it so he doesn't double paned but i don't know why that becomes a constitutional problem if you has off first and then probation and he paid money early he pays for five years he's done paying doesn't matter what legal aside it does very much so because he was just voluntarily making those famous no of course not that's why he gets credit for them towards the ultimate five the problem here is that the evidence is actually contradictory with regard to whether it's the f b i or the v w because the the judgment that the district court handed down specifically talked about it as being a special condition of supervision which eat later changed in his order is a flat order on his amended order on the third one nine hundred ninety four is just a flat order that the defendant pay restitution amount of foreign twenty thousand one hundred ninety five dollars perry not as a condition of probation so that's the operating order except for that order also that it didn't change anything other than in the terms of now it doesn't it doesn't i'm sorry it doesn't i mean that's a flat order which doesn't make it conditioned on probation so it seems to me that's consistent with a  different sets of contracts one was in one thousand nine hundred six the contract in which placed him on parole which had uncertain terms and certain conditions but then in one thousand nine hundred eight when he was released they had him sign and sign several times specifically a contract talking about forbade conditions of probation and supervised release he was not on supervised release and in the conditions of probation it talks about specifically that it is the order of the court and any special conditions set forth by the court which only can be done pursuant to probation so there were contracts that were signed by him with probation showing that he wasn't fact placed on probation unfortunately at this point i think that because no hearing was held down in the district court i think the we have not been able to fully develop the evidence to today to subpoena the evidence from the probation department district court so that i could get the discovery to determine whether or not in fact there were probation reports to because that would then fully resolve the question as to whether or not he was on probation i think you think the june tenth or numbers rather taken from the motion to reconsider which was on june thirtieth thirtieth then it may not be a timely appeal  understand it if i understand you it would be my sense that if there is a timely appeal from motion to reconsider and we do consider that obviously  we would be look it knocked the question of whether there was a stop at jeopardy sparks i think that's right under either under either motion i mean if there have been a double jeopardy violation i think it still would be ultimately what happened in this case and i think there's no need to reach the issue of which statute governs for all but i think even if the court were to reach this the question and look at whether it was the federal probation after the victim with this protection act to look at what was necessary to decide in the fall in that case the restoration had been ordered beyond the council convention which under few of the supreme court held that's not permissible under the victim witness protection a that in order for the parole commission to enforce the court order mr per mr reynolds had to be on probation at that time that's when the parole commission wasn't forcing it they were doing it because there was a valid court order pursuant to mr reynolds being on probation so that in fact rather than going against him this would also support his claim that he had to be in was on