positive rehabilitation in prison prevented presented myriad certificates his work history documented programming and letters his one hundred and twelve page filing presented a compelling case for why so it's an extreme trial penalty yet walked away from a single count to a robbery and that would allow the judge to impose concurrent time instead went to trial and received fifty two years was an extraordinary and compelling basis for compassionate release and merited a reduction in according to judge craps discretion those are all compelling reasons reasons that judges across the country and in this circuit have found that the compassionate release standard unfortunately judge crabb didn't get to that question instead  was stuck at step one and didn't get past that she believed that it was up to the director of the bureau of prisons to determine what is an extraordinary compelling basis truly at the time it was an open question and courts were on either side of the question but this court's decision and gone on to resolve does result that the district court has in its transmission checked only by a deferential appellate review since judge crabb has the discretion and she was never able to exercise it the question is whether or not she would have to night sutton's petition no matter what when it comes to heart that is whether or not the question was harmless for that decision was harmless this court has to be convinced that upon remain  futile that she would reach the exact same result looking at the exact same aspect of discretion and she come out the same what when that happens we usually have a clear statement we have something in the record she says look if the below p has discretion or fashion it no matter what sutton doesn't get really but we have nothing in the record in fact the record shows that she is sympathetic to the claim she could be persuaded by the claim and that sutton does have merit to his claim but she doesn't feel that she can get to that when the court is presented with that type of situation that appropriate remedy has remained and a lot of judge crabbe to exercise her discretion whether she grants relief or denies it it should be up to her in the  what should we make up that's crap statement and her or her is to me about her inability to conclude that your client is no longer a danger i think that that went to the to the covert relief problems of like hey i need to let him out today and that's a different question whether or not she would let him out in five years or today you know what the risk poses there and then there's also the fact that she didn't have the full benefit of i know i'm not limited to health reasons your diabetes though concerning may not be the reason that i would reduce your sentence and she doesn't have to reduce it in full there's nothing in the extraordinary compelling standard that says a judge has to go from how does she have the legal authority to deal with or to address the prospect of a fact if you will you know  well i believe the three thousand five hundred and eighty two percent myriad it opens the door for her to allow for that and it's not just of the stacking has been done but that in this individual chase and only in this individual case that is extraordinary compelling it's not that as a general policy matter i think all stacking should be undone that's up to congress to do and if we wanted to make it retroactive but for her it's that this extreme case this extreme and unjust punishment in her view is extraordinary and compel all on let me let me ask the question in a different way in four hundred and three b of the st step back congress made an expressed determination with respect to the applicability of the amendment right to the stack and it's otherwise allowed in nine hundred and twenty four dollars c and it decided by the terms of four hundred and three b to apply that don't i don't see how there's legal authority under three thousand five hundred and eighty two extraordinary compelling or otherwise to grant that relief so let me give you an example mr bragg suppose for example five or six years ago before the st act and offender team in who is serving a mandatory minimum sentence for you know you name it producing child pornography engaging in an act of terrorism  allows the b o p s to do that how can the guy how can the kind of line allow you out from something the congress made as a mandatory minimum well because the guideline works in conjunction with three thousand five hundred and eighty two and congress  allowed for that and it says for a safety valve in extreme situations we're going to create this safety about and it's not in every case there are district court judges who say this is a once in a career kind of case i was always bothered by the fifty years i had to give that young man so it's not done in every case all mandatory minimums are on dot it's those that the judges find to be extraordinary out and the what the mandatory minimum statutory language my question is in what sense is it extraordinary to enforce a sentence that is legally required if it's extraordinary that sorry you're now i want to answer your question precisely the extraordinary part of it is that we see it differently now that times have changed knowing that that's not going to do because the st step act expressly does not make retroactive it's prospect of change in how these sentences are run consecutive so my my question remains in what sense is it extraordinary to implement a sentence that was legally required when you posed and still is legally required it's extraordinary in that people around the country others are not the same crime is not being punished in the same way it's not that it's six certain areas that that sounds like a contention that other district judges are making legal mistakes it's not our job to figure out what district judges outside the circuit are doing it's our job to figure out what the statutory language means and i wish you'd deal with my question in terms of the statutory language you know i would then to the broker opinion out of the nd circuit where they say there's a distinction between vacate or being allowed for everybody and in these individual cases for courts to say that stands as extraordinary and person does deserve to serve out their full sentence three thousand five hundred and eighty two allows for us to say the finality is not final in that small instance i'd also say your honor the mccoy decision deals exactly with your question as well as a man  override an extraordinary compelling circumstance is that is your question  it doesn't it's the statute allows you to override in an extraordinary and compelling circumstance but my question is what makes implementing a legally valid indeed legally required sentence extraordinary argument in this case and this court should affirm because independent of that decision or that argument in any gun air the district court found that twenty three thousand five hundred and fifty three dollars a factors in particular in particular the seriousness of sudden violent crimes and the court inability to conclude you no longer posed a danger to the community warranted the denial of compassionate release that conclusion is not an abuse of discretion and affirming the order on that basis is supported by the court's opinion and sanders cited in the government's nd twenty jail letter along with at least two unpublished orders however regarding the merits of the stack sentencing issue consistent with the six circuits opinions in wills and tomes the district courts reliance on the non retroactivity of the  changes was correct for at least three reasons st congress is deliberate decision to change the penalties for the class of one hundred and twenty four dollars c defendants without making the change retroactive is an ordinary and usual sentencing practice and a disparity created by post sentencing legislative enactments can't be extraordinary under three thousand five hundred and eighty two dollars c one a nd the st step back expanded the gatekeeper function for these motions but nothing suggested expanded the category of offenders eligible for a leaf or the grounds for these motions which remain rare unique and defendant specific a condition common to a large group of people does not satisfy that standard mr anderson rd yes  if we go back five or six years let me ask you the same question i put to mr bugging you have an offender serving the statutory mandatory minimum sentence who says well i'm going to bypass twenty to fifty five and disregard it and i'm going to invoke three thousand five hundred and eighty two and i'm going to point to what i believe are extraordinary circumstances grounded in my rehabilitation my remorse it's outer on their legal authority to do that before the st act i don't believe so your honor ok and why not important one to be sure that has the extraordinary and compelling circumstance language in it that we're talking about but i don't know how three thousand five hundred and eighty two can be interpreted in a way to enter on twenty to fifty five number one and number two to provide relief from otherwise mandatory sentences prescribed by congress for a particular offenses i'm not aware of authority that allows that i don't think there is your honor it would have to be if the sentencing commission had a policy statement to that effect which i don't believe there is or if there are so i guess i don't believe there is a right and so when congress comes along in the st step back and in four hundred and three b expressway tells us that the new anti stacking provision is going to apply prospect of lee doesn't congress do that against the backdrop of the understanding that i just articulated as well as the ordinary practice of applying you're leaving sentences inflates when changes in law come  about i believe so right and so i don't know how i don't understand how there's any legal authority to do what mr bugman the client is asking us to do that's the government's position that there is district courts deciding on a case by case basis whether to apply a non retroactive sentencing  change if there are no further questions the government will stand on the arguments in our brief and urges court to affirm the district court's for all the reasons identified in the court's opinion or alternatively alternatively to reserve a ruling under this court until address just carter's question it has always been that the director of the bureau of prisons before the st up could petition and get someone out from a mandatory minimum it wouldn't be that the mandatory minimum was unjust but it could be that the director always has the power in twenty to fifty five and thirty five years to offer distinct remedies so it's not that they work in opposition to one another or that there is an end around didn't want it just that this is the entire all of the factors we look at the rehabilitation we look at what you would have gotten today we look at what you know what you were as a person that how young you were and all of those factors are what the district court is supposed to weigh with an extraordinary and compelling basis is not the single