to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation and the provisions applicable to the initial setting of the terms and conditions of post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). Notably, the government concedes in its appellate brief that the district court’s statement was “a plainly erroneous view of the law” because “[supervised release can be extended up to three years in this case under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).” Aplee. Br. at 21. We agree. Under the plain language of § 3583(e)(2), the district court could have, had it initially imposed a one-year term of supervised release, subsequently modified that term up to three years (the statutory maximum term allowed). See United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368, 375 (7th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>). Thus, as the government concedes, the
holding that a completed term of confinement did not render a challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence moot where defendant could receive a reduced term of supervised release holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised 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 holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration holding that district judge was laboring under the misapprehension that in his words a term of supervised release can be reduced but cant be extended thats wrong it can be extended