ours my name's john lennon and i'm representing the author wants to prove there is no dog in this case the issue here is whether or not the district court erred in imposing consecutive rather than current supervised releas rendering what were originally conceived current supervised release terms in two consecutive prison terms the district court was recess and seeing mr cruz and did not have jurisdiction to impose consecutive as opposed to concurrent terms this issue was discussed by this court in jackson but ultimately that was not the issue when jackson in jackson the issue was the at the argument was that under thirty six twenty four he that because it is presumed at the time supervis sentencing so that's why looking at the facts of jackson and looking at the facts of this case are important and jackson there were three cases jackson had a case recently in central district and he was sentenced in the eastern district those two cases were found to be related cases under three hundred one point two of the guidelines so they were ordered to run concurrent as they would have to when i don't have to anymore in light of a book and fanfan but they're suggested to run concurrently then there was a third case which was totally and the eastern district ran the two supervised release terms in the central district in the eastern district concurrent but imposed a consecutive or the one in missouri now under the operation the guidelines if one went back at the was the actual possession of the machine gun so so going back then to the time what options were going to be available in the district court at the time of recess and thing since they had to be run concurrently as prison terms well grouping that they're closely related because what it says yes it does the total offense level or the right but if they are closely related related counts what it says is you put it all in one big pile and ultimately the total sentence the largest pile couple covers everything and that's what happened in this case the district court found that the range was fifty seven seventy one after grouping everything together and imposed sixty five months now thirty one point two but it all in one big pile and whatever the top of the pile it's covers everything it covers everything that means it's concurrent so looking back in terms of the analysis of what would be the options of the district court now i'm and shoot it down well there but the point is the point ultimately whether we're going to go into a logical analysis or not is that there is no basis for the district court to now render what were originally  ok so i mean the point is that in looking at this that in this was not a modification of a term supervised release right under the navarro case decided by the government and this court said you know we're not when you go back and imposing their prison term by those consecutive prison terms the court has essentially rendered what was a concurrent supervised release term now a consecutive prison term and that is that beyond the scope of what i think the district court had and supervised release terms were revoked and served concurrently those terms were make concurrent the one that was rendered consecutive was the one that was an unrelated case out of missouri with the group and yes ye jackson first of all contrary it was implied judge keith at the time of the original sentence had no option but to impose the supervised release terms concurrently and that's because section thirty six twenty four either the same one that is that allies in jackson fans will ever whether they're federal or state whatever there are more than one term supervised release they're going to run concurrently so it's not a matter of her living her absence of that point whether she could go concurrent or consecutive which she could have done that might have made this differently say well i'm just going to impose one term of supervised release and not the other now which is not even as yet you mandated a supervised release term so the only option that you chose was to give two terms of supervised release now whether or not she goes though she has to consider the terms under section thirty five fifty three which delineate  considerations now the next the next important point is at the time of required to make them and her son's right and that when we get from the time the section thirty six twenty four when he is released from imprisonment all of the terms all the terms supervise released must run concurrently and that's what it provides so she was she did not have a choice even if he said i want to run consecutively th whatsoever the the grouping might have something to do with the imprisonment sentence the courts do not cite that as being relevant in these cases on the imposition supervised release following rotation and frankly there's no statute that says that that should be taken in consideration all that we do have is that section thirty five eighty three eighty three provides that you can revoke you go through federal criminal procedure thirty two point one now thirty five to to  develop the procedure and then i'm itching answer your honor your question of whether we keep how we get the how she got the power to provide secular sentences that comes from thirty five eighty four  think there's a there's a couple ways that they could when they could buy departure but also if it would get parker yes i believe so or to say that the two events were not part of the same transaction right then you wouldn't group thirty five eighty three provides that the court may have to consider in fact or set forth in section thirty five fifty three revoke a term a supervisor a lease and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term supervised recently released authorized by statute for the offense that result in such terms supervise is also stacked originally doesn't evolve from revoking the term of supervised release that the term is revoked including the concurrent signs yes it does and also i think that in jackson they were all that all three sentences w concurrent upon revocation there was two that were concurrent one that went consecutive and what they went through was that that thirty five eighty four explicitly says that multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time  he got no more than twenty four months for either term but a total of thirty six months so he got an extra twelve months as well no he got it he got twenty four months for the revocation of one term and twelve