the time if you're from that perspective as would you argue that in your brief that would mean an offender who had committed different offenses in just for judicial districts and district court judges impose supervised release on for the offenses in front of them that if only unless we're going to make a very extreme distance california and new jersey and and the new jersey office so has an active supervised release order but the offender lives in california your view would be that the new jersey supervised release obligations disappear because it is not actively supervising and it couldn't because it's three thousand miles away so how isn't your argument really hurt an offender who has the benefit of the concurrency term no your honor my argument goes as far as the court would see it and i think even in the record even in the district court i make clear that certainly you can in directly supervise someone you can  directly supervise them through another office but you can't do nothing is what it is i think what maybe oversimplification of the requirements that are imposed by thirty six twenty four but you're saying then the probation officers because it's the thirty four twenty five thirty six twenty four thirty six twenty four east talks about super vision to the extent warranted something along those lines yes so and that decision is made by the probation officer so you're saying that if a probation officer has determined the middle district of florida is doing a fine enough job to supervise the offender that decision means the district judge loses the authority over his or her judgement no you  not i i think that if they put them the make they has to be some determine they have to do they have to make that determination and so that there has to be something that that is done i certainly don't think that it's done if they are not even aware that the person has been released so i think i think the record is pretty clear that this probation office not only was not aware of the when and the little bit of evidence that that your client was in the western district of kentucky and why it is florida was the place that he was directed to eventually report to di can you elaborate on any of that well it's not it's not in the record i think that's somewhat  know i believe that's but but but i think the reason from our perspective was that's where he wanted to go and so and that's so i think there's an interplay and the statute even contemplates that interplay of someone being released somewhere that we can say that can say that john that there's a specific point i think that it's you know because it certainly there's there's no case law there's no there's nothing that that that says ok you  to make some type of effort to send some paperwork to give some notification to the to the offense to the defendant to the probation or but but i have to admit that does not exist what what i  think is occurring here was with really changes the scenario here is when someone has been released for a good bit of time and and the probation officer does absolutely nothing to supervise i agree with you i think this  can't say that there's a specific point i think after the offense occurs is certain you can't i think you've lost your ability at that point because you've advocated you've essentially you know abdicated your ability  to take the power over that supervision and you're saying it's because of a lack of active supervision is that why i think it's because you know the term active supervision i don't want to mislead the corded in terms of like there has to be some maybe maybe they can you didn't necessarily need to be an active contact with the direct direct contact with the probation but at least they had to have a relationship with the sick to do that i think generally that sending out i think this yes it sentencing judge because the still part of the sentence of the sentencing judge would have jurisdiction question is is there any does is there any meaning to the to the sentence to the sentence in thirty six twenty four that says the probation of probation officer shall not can make but shell supervise during this period and if there's no jurisdiction in this case i think i lost jurisdiction somewhere on so so i think that that's the judge can i think under these circumstances the judge can say we really don't have the right doesn't that doesn't have to go as far as to say i don't i lost your station but the judge can say for this period of time that the court through his arm of the probation office did not assume it's a discretionary just decision on the part of the judge if it's discretionary then that means that that sentence thirty six twenty four has no has no statutory effect so that means  report right right one one district both of them lose the the opportunity because of the shower how would that work in that particular instance or with this argument that you're pos g just not apply i think i think in that situation you could even say that both jurisdictions may have the ability to two to suit because there is an active taken  i once again i think it goes back to the distinction here it goes back to when the probation office really the difference here with probation office takes no no  active role in the supervision so are you abandoning the view that just because one term ends the second term ends to i'm not going to argue that you're on very good thank you thank you  with respect to the fact that if i understand mr jupiter correctly i think he was withdrawing or not pressing the argument that determination in florida also didn't terminate in the virgin islands happy as a question of that but i think that that's correct with respect to the questions of the panel was asking mr jupiter regarding the absence of supervised release here the government maintains that that still does not somehow relinquish or bait jurisdiction in the district of the virgin just feels to follow that statutory mandate of instance a little different than this but i think obviously we have seen that what's the what would be the remedy i think one year on i think that michel i mean i think it's important to keep in mind with the second cause of that is the probation shell super lies the extent of warranted and as directed by the sentencing court and here there is nothing the district court in the virgin islands didn't there's nothing that shows that this court specifically told the probation officer to engage in you know activities one two and three or conduct x y and z with respect to this supervised release e so i think it's very important to remember the restrictive cause that follows the imperative turn yourself in saying that in the absence of specific instructions from the district work they would not have an obligation to do anything they are i'm just saying that i think is a very important always keep in mind that shell connects to the probation office the standard terms of conditions of release generally will not generally but they tell the instruct the release see what he has to refrain from doing mean their couch and telling them with the don't do that you know do not  hand guy and do not associate with felons do not you know take drugs do not violate federal state or local law so if the list of prohibitions they go to the really see if they really see does indeed abide by those conditions he complies with the terms of supervisor and i think the probation officers look at it and they say ok he's doing what he should have been done i don't know that there is some type of need for an active supervision of this particular individual so shell really has no meaning there you are i wouldn't say that it doesn't have any meaning but i'm so sorry it doesn't create an obligation it doesn't create an affirmative vote i think that that's i think that that's actually correct your honor i don't think that that statute requires any type of active or affirmative conduct on behalf of a probation officer as there is a concept as unusual as it sounds right an unsupervised supervised release for the offender simply just has to comply with the standard conditions of release that's very true your honor and i think that that is you know my experience is that that does happen and that is that is very common as long as the it does seem to me though that the virgin islands provision department dropped the ball here and i think it's seems to me that they are pretty much conceded you know he raises an argument that this is  not have occurred well you got or again i don't think that there's anything i don't think that thirty six twenty four and i don't know over the other statute or case that requires actors supervision here i i would to be really honest agreed things probably could have been handled a bit better but i don't know that the probation officers in the distro of the virgin islands were actively doing something that resulted in type of unfairness particularly as the thing that was living in tend to foreclose some type of fair and fairness argument he here i think i've also important to remember your honor that things could always probably be done better but that doesn't mean what was done was necessarily bad or violated the law in some respects so that i think that's also a very important consideration given that there was no affirmative obligation on behalf of probation in the thirty six twenty four other than as required doesn't i mean they the two terms run if there are terms of supervised release they do run concurrently but that speaks to the running of the terms concurrently that doesn't speak to the term a nation of terms  terminations a very different matter from something from terms running concurrently and i think that's what led the second in the fifth circuit to state why that statute does provide for concurrent terms to be indeed run concurrently that is not the same thing as terminations and i think that that is what that is or properly recognized here is that the termination of florida did not automatically terminate supervision somewhere else and i think that that would lead defender in new jersey the new jersey kora new jersey probation officer said ok things are going well i'm going to terminate you because this is what this judge of the florida judge did give me time serve them terminating i mean i don't i don't see how a district  outcomes and i'm asking you how would that play out well i do think that that's why i think that the these courts hold that there that term a nation of one supervised release doesn't necessarily terminate every other supervised rel one is there's nothing the statute that provides for that but i think as a practical matter that that would lead to the impracticalities i just just stated is it one isn't the impact tells me if the new jersey court imposed five years of supervised release for a particular violation  california imposed a three year term of supervised release violation at supervised release and the california court said i'm going to terminate the decision with then cut off two years from the new jersey sentence right that's correct isn't that the practical problem i think that as a yes i would be the practical problem and look at the flip side would be fair that was the five years that was terminated and you have three years elsewhere why would that be i don't think that that would be fair because then you'd have one court it's essentially amending our terminating at the judgment of according to court and i mean i think that if district court if supervised release could be  terminated if one if one terminations necessarily terminate all others then i think that you would have to cry frankly task because this report all over the country could be terminating each other's supervised release because like well my ended so therefore i'm going to are with regards to last point i don't think that the there is a danger particularly in this situation of one district court worrying about another district court  cutting off its legs with regard to supervised release either the whole district court sees all u s district court and the fact that the district court that has the violation before it in a proceeding in that district court in mr johnson's case the middle district of florida determining that his not only should his sentence run concurrent with the sentence that he gave that that was given for the offense but also that his supervision should stop and what we have under these specific that is we have a the arm of the court saying before hand that they're going to leave everything to the middle district of florida not just leave it up to them but not anything to even find out anything about the particular offender well actually the district of florida declined any requests for supervision  well you know is that was the test of the testimony from the probation officer was that he called the probation office over there and x m would you would you take jurisdiction and they said no i don't think that that should know and they said no i don't think there's nothing in the record that says that they were that they actually went to the judge and say charge we should take jurisdiction of this case so for this particular subject he got to go to the judge for the transfer but for the active supervision the inactivity by probation officer cutts the judge's jurisdiction off i don't think i think that in this in and just in terms of the adequacy of the record being clear that there was a  i guess an affirmative denial by the district court i don't think that that there's sufficient evidence just by the probation officer that the probation officers testimony that i called somebody up and they said no i don't think i don't think that that's a sufficient say that so i don't but i also don't think that there's a problem in terms of district courts being able to make determinations when being to make an appearance in situations like this and discourse making