and also the da want to appeal or further litigate that release or no thought of a short that is just dismiss its appeal and then move for reconsideration in the district court forty five days after final judgment procedure twelve point one in the supreme court's decision reasoning in a bar about reconsideration motion so what why don't we consider the movement under rule thirty seven dollars to be discussed in a ruling for motion for reconsideration  one then the got the governor actually override that by dismissing its appeal at any point during the litigation and then go back down to what doesn't what matters is when the timing of the government's motion f reconsideration if they'd moved it simultaneously with three thousand six hundred and thirty seven i agree with you the dischord didn't have jurisdiction but we're talking about timing of making a motion so why wasn't there timing proper   or lack of jurisdiction so rule thirty seven dollars allowed the district court a limited power to consider it and to indicate what it will do but that the motion doesn't act as a reconsideration motion because that's not one of the features of rule thirty seven so my argument is that rule thirty seven and look up on one rick i like three sides of a coin and the only the only purpose of rule thirty seven is to but even if this court deny agreement under top on one that actually the government could have at any point during the call of litigation it could have dismissed its appeal and then gone back down to the district court actually even after briefing and then whoever would have lost effect so i'm relying on graves which is basically there there is i'm like i will pop on one and room and this supreme court's decision in a bar because there's no decision  that when the motion is made in the district court that that sets it makes a timely or else one doesn't even take effect so why would the oral motion make it a timely motion then rule so the timeliness refers to the event that happened that allows the make the motion time and so i think reconsideration motions that refers to the actual decision from this court for example under the l me but my understanding of jones is that you know that the government's notice of appeal did not preclude the district court from acting within its own power inviting and entertaining the request reconsideration and in that you suggest record actually time that an appeal can be taken not when the appeal has actually been filed well your honor you did also say that and i think the government's most reconsideration here was there's no dispute in the record as a fact this document was served i think you know counsel raises something about whether it was actually received or not certainly sir but was this issue presented to the district court because that seems like it would take some fact finding down second i think that the rules presume that route thirty seven is going to function in conjunction with move on one and i think there's a danger to separating these and one possible gamesmanship that i would identify in this situation is if truly all that all the government had to do was move on to rule thirty seven dollars then it really could wait until briefing was done and it was appointed and then it was dismissed the peel and then its initial motion under rule thirty seven dollars would have been all it needed to do and then i well i think no one disagrees that that the government could have done that the issue was whether the government was required to do rules are and they're designed not to work in that way that is on the thirty and this court to decide on one if the government dismisses the feel sure that it can move reconsideration within the time it's their prerogative but once they were going to rule thirty seven they were bound by the rule