united states versus issue in this appeal from the denial of a two point reduction is whether a sentence credit applied pursuant to five g one dollar b of the sensing guidelines can be taken into account when determining whether a reduction is possible and then also whether judge actions in fact granted such a sentence credit and our view is supported by the cases we cite as that a sentence credit applied pursu afoul of the rule requiring that the amended sentence be within the amended guideline range to john someone you trust the threshold issue of whether or not the district judge here even applied five g one dollar it seems that at the sentencing the judge did not reference five g one point three in reaching the sentence and actually said that was academic in the decision on the thirty five day two motion said i wasn't on on five g one point three and in fact if he was relying on five g one point three in the sentence he would have credited the time back to december th which was the time of the new york arrest of his giving credit for all the time really and because it related g one point three it should have gone back to the center and the district judge did not do that so well isn't all of those things indicate when i've been talking about five to one three here i think i think we are i think that the confusion is stems in part from for and ultimately he returns to court two years later and says hey the g o p isn't getting me for this time served on this related case please amend the judgment and the parties agree to do that and the judge agrees to amend the judgment but you also do that under five k two dollars as a departure and an initial sense i am not talking about under thirty five need to initial sensing can a judge down we depart for similar that criteria judge sessions doesn't expressly say i'm done i'm granting this credit under five g one point three but the inference is there because the government at sentencing express argues he should get no credit under five g one point three you shouldn't even run the sentences concurrent and judge sessions expressly disagrees with that it does run the sentences concurrent and then then when five g one point three was raised he looked at and said that's just another two months on the five three that's academic i don't care about five three in my own way of doing it i'm getting very close to that isn't that one reading of what he actually did i don't think so because five to one  well he didn't do that the way the court has told it to hold a told it to do right by you know going out that reduction and rather than backdating it and clearly that's something that council maybe  should have raised on appeal and you might have gotten another two months off but what we're hearing now those mistakes were made it fits all of the criteria of five g one  why did they get it wrong for a couple reasons that they don't we think fully distinguish between eligibility on the one hand and the extent of a reduction and i think  that's an important issue because eligibility is is is a very narrow question under one view one dollar it should simply turn on one on whether the guideline range goes down as a result of the amended or retroactive amendment here mr zappa taro's guideline range goes down it was two one hundred and twelve thousand two hundred and sixty two months now it's one hundred and sixty eight two thousand two hundred and ten credit the credit not that's not a departure and not a variance you're not keeping at the same and this is a very basic part of the actual sentence imposed we think the courts sentence reduction within the very narrow balance of a section thirty five easy to see to proceeding the remedy he invoked below doesn't allow for plenary resentencing it's a limited tool designed to make precise surgical adjustments to one judge applies one to one ten to determine whether and to what extent the defendant is eligible for reduction it does so by applying the guidelines amendment calculating an amended range leaving all of a guideline decisions for as and as they were in the original sentence and  sessions to do was to make a mechanical comparison of the judgment one hundred and sixty eight months with the bottom of the amended range one hundred and sixty eight months and zero and he was there that that's right and so to the extent the defendant was technically arguments in trying to inflate the original sentence in abreu although it was incorrect and following the more reasoning that you could apply credits at all in which the government takes position that's not part of the analysis at least in abreu there was an oral pronouncement at sentencing that the overall sentence was seventy two months so at least there was something in the record to suggest that the district court intended to impose a sentence above what ultimately became the bottom of the amended range during the opposite is joint sessions has been consistent through sentencing through his disposition f ron one of the problems here is that judge sessions hasn't been consistent not withstanding is is ruling on the motion what we have here is a sentence adjustment that seems the fed all the criteria buy it has to ignore the fact that one the one dollar talks about the amended range being the guideline range not the guideline range and any adjustments right that's that's the whole problem that's what helm pointed out is that at step seven under one b one point one you're you're done with the range everything after that is something beyond the range right so you have to compare the range but then there's the there is the actual process of computing a this is a five g one point three reduction by every measure as if it's all the criteria and we've asked the court to reverse judge sessions decision thank you thank you both