behind the policy statements clearly state that you're to replace to the two point two the one point one drug level and leave everything else in place at the time the p completely agreed that this was a new guideline range sentencing guidelines are appropriate the only thing that has changed is that we now know that that guideline was unfairly high because it was tied as it was to the mandatory minimum we had the commission's expert testimony you know that it was unfairly too high and that we should rectify that situation by granting this modest and there was a day there's still the three five five three factor one if it realized the guideline was twenty one and not twenty three we have a statement from the government to the contrary they were going to not buy a fifty one whether the guidelines were twenty one or whether they were twenty three and in the supreme court's most recent line of cases on the question of jurisdiction it said it's up to congress to articulate when something's jurisdiction or when something's not if it doesn't clearly states they're in the statute to suppose based on the guidelines considered it lists the amount of drugs it's one hundred to four hundred grams and clarified the stipulation was for purposes of t v one point one of the guidelines it says the defendant gets minus three for acceptance it says no other enhancement juggernauts you look on the table for where you are with drug amounts not a single sentence in any criminal history category gets you two hundred twenty months that's why there was no tying of the eligible for a reduction under thirty five liter but you know again that we can only look at the four corners in here and that all is from the four corners of the agreement your honor i mean if we were going to look elsewhere we look at the statement of reasons the court explicitly s initially the government stated that quote the united states agrees that this court has the discretion to reduce the defense that is the sixty eight months in prison j b six that's absolutely correct that's isn't that who and then their guidelines were reduced what was the applicable guideline range but then there is this statement saying that if you don't satisfy the first two ponds there's no jurisdiction you can i'm like yes i believe so your way of dismissing  dealt with an amendment to how the sense you commission to find it the out of my range but when i when i saw that language i took that i mean that was one of the scase is that i encountered whenever i was reviewing this matter and i know that my made a mistake about it but but the best i think it can be said is that from your perspective that and witherspoon are intention with each other yes but not not intention i think that i think that they do complement each by first well argument that i ever attended in the third circuit was nine hundred seventy nine and the person who got out was a panel but i had judge all sort on it and this poor person was grilled on civil procedure matters never got to the merits and he was so shocked belittles that if you take a drink of water walking podium it would not have reached this time ok he was tough and rightfully so i have argued in front of him before well so i do not have a good answer at this point to judge for his question i do apologize for that again maybe i misread the statement and looking at that is that the minute it stated jurisdiction but i still think that if we are going to get to the issue of how an that's correct and that was after mr navarro who represented mr freeman cited to that very report on two separate occasions in the council motion for thirty five e t c so to the extent that the mr freeman is no faulting the district don't think the district court was obligated to look at only the good stuff in that report i think was obligated to look at everything in the fort because that was injected injected into the next by right mr freeman in the first instance and i don't think it's  really but if the court could only look at zero three you really can't take into account so that have to get off work as well had you have to taken that into account because the reason why mr freeman is there in two thousand and thirtee or mandatory minimum he was not sentenced as you were offender he was not subject to twenty one eighty five notice enhancement which would have increased the sentence from five to ten years if it was a maybe twenty minimum so it was a prepared are whenever sentencing occur but truly developments factual that all of that occurred post sentence while incarcerated and you know if someone wants to bring the good in the government of entitled to bring the bad you know just assume this or this is only a limited form of relief is a limited exception to the we're finale i think she used terms like that women in terms of maybe a woman a twelve times in the dylan opinion saying that this is a very very circumscribed situation here we are only entitled in this case i'm not going to say not in this case but the fans who would otherwise qualify and not mr freeman we get to level production that's it nothing more nothing less and you have to look at the thirty five fifty three a factors in determining whether or not the exercise of discretion would be warranted now in connection with that if the defense wants to bring information saying you know he's taking classes he's working as a chef see you know he's a trustee that's great and if the government wants to bring information saying oh he was just convicted for importing here one having his girlfriend smuggle heroin to prison we could do that as well that information should i think be subject it imposes a limitation that can be properly ranked as jurisdictional in nature absent and you have to look at in context and i think when you look at the limited hype of relief afforded by thirty five the you see in connection with dylan as well as so the idea that the court is necessarily going to say thirty five fifty three i'm not going to give him any more i think that we're getting ahead of ourselves hey man i'm sorry you're on the way in with us probably come see us any any that he would do of based on no evidence here it's not just that there's no evidence evidence contradicts the idea that he's a career offender and i say that because the only reference to career founder comes in the supplemental report prepared for the two months not greater than necessary if you know those that were presented with a lower guidelines there's every indication he's going to do the same thing which is what he did in the principal of this conspiracy case he reduced as far as he could take the military minimum one hundred  twenty months that mr green's case the codefendant i'd just like to point out one final fact and that is that mr freeman has served approximately fifty seven months including that time and