counsel nor research has produced any authority as to when one terminates.”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1020, 100 S.Ct. 677, 62 L.Ed.2d 652 (1980). Counsel have cited no cases, nor could we find any, that address our question of whether § 1503 applies to a defendant’s knowing and fraudulent misrepresentations to the USPO in violation of the terms of a district court’s order governing his supervised release. Nonetheless, we agree with the District Court that Novak’s misconduct occurred while a judicial proceeding was “pending” because the relevant conduct “occurred prior to sentencing and within the time after sentencing for filing a request for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b).” Report and Recommendation at 9; see United States v. Fernandez, 837 F.2d 1031, 1034 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 838, 109 S.Ct. 102,
holding federal rule of civil procedure 11 motion in abeyance pending resolution of a bankruptcy proceeding holding that even if  1503 requires a pending judicial proceeding such requirement was met where misconduct occurred after sentencing but within period to file motion to reduce sentence pursuant to federal rule of criminal procedure 35b holding that a defendant claiming immunity pursuant to section 7760321 florida statutes must file a motion to dismiss pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3190b and requiring trial court to address the motion at a pretrial evidentiary hearing holding that pursuant to florida rule of criminal procedure 3050 the court may extend the sixtyday time limit for a motion to mitigate sentence as long as the motion to mitigate is resolved within a reasonable time holding that district court may consider 18 usc  3553a 2012 factors when deciding the extent of a sentence reduction after granting a rule 35b motion