of the United States under any statute of the United States except as otherwise provided by statute or by rules of the dis trict court or by order of the court in the proceedings. (emphasis added). This court has described the scope of Rule 81(a)(3) in broad terms, saying that its effect is to “make application of the rules of civil procedure in subpoena enforcement proceedings discretionary with the district court.” United States v. Se. First Nat’l Bank of Miami Springs, 655 F.2d 661, 663 (5th Cir. Unit B Sept.1981). Although the government did not present this argument before the district court, we are free to affirm the district court’s decision on any ground that is supported by the record. Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1059 (11th Cir.200 85 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). In United States v. Miller, the Eighth
holding district court may treat bankruptcy courts findings and conclusions as proposed holding district court need not make findings and conclusions as required by rule 52a because under rule 81a3 that requirement could be modified by issuing an order holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that a district courts findings under rule 52a are to be liberally construed in support of the district courts judgment holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion