as filed by the district court clerk on November 6, 2014 — was untimely as to the original judgment, and affirmatively states that Wiley timely filed a notice of appeal. Therefore, timeliness poses no bar to our consideration of this appeal. See United States v. Ortiz, 613 F.3d 550, 554 (5th Cir.2010) (“The pro se notice of appeal was untimely, The government notes the untimeliness but does not object to considering the merits. The time limit for appeal can be waived. We will review the merits of Ortiz's claims." (citation omitted)), 2 . We note that Wiley does not argue that the requirement that she pay the $3,830.28 in full before the end of her supervised release is unreasonable in light of her financial situation. Cf. United States v. Calbat, 266 F.3d 358, 366 (5th Cir.2001)
holding that a district court erred in requiring a defendant to pay 250000 in restitution as a term of his threeyear supervised release without considering the defendants financial resources holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that  3583e2 allows a district court to modify the conditions of supervised release without extending the term of that release holding that a statute requiring a threeyear term of supervised release did not eviscerate the district courts discretion to adjust the term of supervised release pursuant to  3583e