on the calendar for argument united states against jacks another weird technical question do you regard the two thousand and eighteen action by congress as something kind of in the nature of the repeal of the old thirty five maybe to see one and the reenactment of a new thirty five dollars in the one with now an option for the defendant with proper exhaustion of course to move ahead other words is it really is it a new statute or  your honor it's not a repeal of the old three thousand five hundred and eighty one i think the language of briefs talking about it as if it were a new statute is just to say in the context of this new procedural vehicle on this specific aspect of the statute that allows defendants to move or compassionate release when they were not able to do so previously that that provision needs to be interpreted afresh because the existing portions of the statute change in that context and  court needs to look at that language as a whole rather than you know if there hasn't been a whole brand new statute why those it's wang which after the transition clause in the there's a dispute about what this chapter means whether it's chapter two of the mammoth bill in which the sentencing reform act got caught or is instead chapter two hundred and twenty seven of title twenty chapter and if it doesn't apply don't we stop there why would the language why would the precise language of an applicable statute matter your honor to words this chapter in the sentencing reform act do not comprise chapter two to seven of title twenty eight of totally teens hard they refer only to chapter two of the sentencing title eighteen united states code which is the underlying wall that's why i started with the question that i started because if it were really a brand new statute just as we got a new statute of limitations for federal civil cases which we had to sort through which cases did that apply to and suppose there's been a new amendment and so on if this had been a brand new ad the blue statute and started with the words in any case that i think good textualists would say in any case means in any canadian case and so i don't see how you can get what you need without really severing what happened in the st step back from the whole mess  of the sentencing reform act and everything that had gone on before and maybe you can do that or not but i think if it had been a brand new statute we would have a pretty serious question before us you know will congress is now coming in and just making a provision that about compassionate release your honor i think the question whether or not it's a brand new statute is a brand new vehicle of relief that never existed before congress clearly intended to mark a break from what it was doing in the sentencing reform act and i don't believe there's anything in the sentencing reform act that was intended to limit future congresses ability when creating new step act is to understand the restrictions of the sentencing reform act as being limited to the specific provisions of the one thousand nine hundred and four congress had in front of it because of course those were the only provisions that they could they could make it reasonable prediction parts of the statute we st got congress made different choices about whether they wanted a lot of and it's to be able to take advantage of the new programs or new procedural vehicles created in that statute and the silence   hearing it it's odd to me that the government is going to the mats to prevent this tiny group of inmates from exhausting before the bureau prisons and bringing these claims i mean we are of the total number of compassionate release claims that we've seen of late and this is a drop in the bucket i mean you know and particularly since  you know with the exception of a few people such as mr jackson who was not eligible for parole it's always been fairly duplicative anyway and so to go from a system in which there was duplicated power at the motion the bureau of prisons to a system in which these old inmates are are uniquely disadvantaged seems per st to me if you look at the title of this section in the in the fair step back and you are st step so you don't want to really interpret the statute i think this case is hilarious by the way from the point of view of somebody who may not be quite as wedded to the plain language of the statute to some other people because it forces the government to say in any case doesn't actually mean in any case there's a bracket after it in any case applying to people sentenced under the provisions of the sentencing reform act close brackets the court and one gets lectures from the supreme court about adding language to statutes and i guess you just add it when it's convenient well judge in any case it existed from the from the are right but the referent changed when this was where the reference easily could have changed later congress may have had a different vision of what in any case means but there was  trying to look at what did congress mean to do in two thousand and eighteen when it decided to open the door a crack not very far actually but a bit for in may direct motions for compassionate on the statute and that have been recognized by the courts including this court in united states versus stewart now we know they don't every now and we should we should think that the government takes the position that one interpret in the statute ought to take out the history of amendments to that statute and perhaps the history of what people said on the floor of congress well judge i don't know about other cases but in this particular case i think that the language that congress has used is clear and i think every in every court that has addressed th and i think it's reasonable to assume that the number is relatively low but i do not know the exact number i thought it was two hundred and some right i think that's right oh that would be much smaller be partial think very small indeed because the parole board can perform this function for the people in that category and don't want to do we know how many people are in that category judge i do not know the answer one question at the end of the day the government uses a statutory interpretation case and section thirty five b to c one is never applied to individuals like the defendant who are convicted of offenses offenses committed prior to november st one thousand and seven the st step ac language that statute does not allow individuals who apply to the ocean for compassionate release on his or her own behalf only the bureau of prisons or b o p is permitted to file these motions because the be of he never filed a motion here the district court correctly denied sent its motion question that you put to the government our understanding and to be clear this isn't part of the record but our understanding is that there are about two hundred dollars logic and its total the number of  compassionate release section as well as its intent in excluding a lot of defendants from other benefits of the law when it chose to do so clearly indicates that in two thousand and eighteen congress thought that it needed to say something if it went to the dependence not to be eligible and its failure to speak in the context of compassionate release combined with the significant evidence both from the bill itself as well as from you know the legislative history has discussed in for instance the nd circuit decision brooker indicates that there was an intent for this kind of relieved to be broadly available and even in the district courts short order it noted that extending compassionate release to inmates like mr jackson has a logical and humanitarian appeal and i think the court should require more permit government than in of clickable limitation applies only to the sentencing reform act in finding that congress is intent was something