However, the Government submits that as this Court has previously held, the fugitive tolling doctrine can “coexist” with Pocklington. See United States v. Ertell, No. 1:11-CR-00278-SAB, 2016 WL 7491630, at *6-8 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2016); United States v. Warren, No. 3:91-72-SI, 2016 WL 3457161, at *3-4 (D. Or. June 23, 2016), affd, 708 Fed.Appx. 472 (9th Cir. 2018); United States v. Fields, No. 6:13-cr-0001-MJS, 2016 WL 6611550, at *3 (E.D. Cal. November 9, 2016); United States v. Abraham, No. 1:12-CR-00163-BAM, 2016 WL 4466001, at *1 (E.D. Cal. August 23, 2016). The Government emphasizes “[t]he fugitive tolling doctrine rests on the principle that ‘[a] person on supervised release should not receive credit against his period of supervised release for time [when], by virtue of his own wrongful act, he was not in fact observing the terms of his supervised release.'