his probation officer and this court has already ruled that that doesn't make you a fugitive and it doesn't make you a fugitive because being a fugitive means something more it means that you've taken an act to affirmative yourself and you've done so with the intent of aiding law enforcement process the government you have a legal obligation to do something i'm sorry your honor that you have a legal obligation to do something that he had an obligation seven months seven months later he was arrested still living in the same city but at a different address and this court said he's not a fugitive not reporting is not enough to make you a fugitive in the absence of some showing by the government him than anything that the probation office did in this case with mr morgan here they sent him a letter and he didn't respond they sent it to these arrests where they believed him to be living and they never followed up jurisdiction and at the time it's been told that the probation office hadn't known where to find him and the government makes a lot of that in its brief but and usually aside from the fact that mr morgan i can't really speak to the level of the fugitive and they never did it because even if they don't know where to find him he's not a fugitive unless he's not readily accessible to that careful law enforcement officer under was any case and the government never showed that they so he didn't respond to a letter they sent him and as to that if you want to ask that address that would hardly be surprising given the home situation that's revealed by the record as to the events of october two thousand and three but also there's no showing that he move only that he didn't report no one like to the apartment no one checked utility records no one did anything to try to find him basically left the matter go until he was arrested ultimately about eleven months later does that mean that you don't have to do certainly not your honor he had an obligation to report and he didn't do it but the government has to do what it's supposed to do two hundred thirty five eighty three ah if they're going to  cation after that supervised release term has run and they're doing it with a warrant which is how they did it here and they have to swear they weren't and they didn't do that and that act is a kind of a jurisdictional limit on whether judge real had the authority to conduct eradication hearing it all i'm not saying that mr his conduct was stellar he didn't report it he should but the government had an obligation to if they were going to revoke him to do it in the way answer in terms of the dram of occasions when you look at what it means by allowing somebody just not to show up and then they can stay out there long enough and a busy government has other things to do when they're trying to stop al qaeda at the analogy is not a correct one then there are all of the cases that interpret the statute thirty nine twenty about what it means to be a fugitive and when is that when that is to say when the statute of limitations and be told because you've been a fugitive or the  government's well actually the government's cases don't really pan out that way the so i would say that last time but the cases interpreting thirty nine twenty i think are very instructive because they lay out very clearly the government's burden of diligence for example the catholic  was doing something from what your person could infer that he was trying to hide these are the people that the black and white police officers will tell you which they're most afraid because when they stop them on the street they stop them in a car they have no idea that this person is really  he in connecticut where he says that at the time of the warrant that's when the probation office declared we're not supervising him we are looking for him and so the the substance of what's going on here is the person emitted in his in his in this file is you and the underlying violation he admitted failing to report on this number seventeen as that letter required him he did not you know raise the factual argument that i never got the letter failing to report within seventy two hours of returning to the country by the professional surfer i mention there is another condition of his probation that was right there on page thirty six the answer her record that he has to file a monthly report with the prevention warranted tolling even during that period where the defendant had not been trying to flee but would i think it a minimum level stance for is that there's a broader effort to leave the statute to show that when someone is not in fact subject to the terms of supervised rel and i'm sorry i just don't i do not see the similarity between saying that someone who didn't report to probation does not lose the right to appeal directly from a criminal conviction which is something that it's not due process it ought to be i think it is someone who is told that he's supposed to report in order to be able to stay out on the street