dispute that mr callington was convicted of a covered offense that the district court applied sections to in three of the st step that does if they were in effect at the time mr callington was originally sente and the resulting guideline range is the statutory maximum of two hundred and forty months under the st step act in other words there's the discretion allow the district courts to disregard the statutory maximum limits i believe in mr callington cements that this court's chambers decision all but answers the question mr chambers like mr calling to was deemed eligible for a sentence reduction under the  st step act he was convicted of a cupboard offense and mr chambers was no longer a career offender under the intervening retroactive case law the district court declined to change the that the st step act is makes the sections of the fair sentencing act retroactive in effect that error here is the same that it's both the guidelines error because the guidelines there is the error in his case be correct there is a limit on the discretion of the district court and it was fully outlined in the briefing so i don't want to go over everything in the brief unless the court house questions about fair and then when the st step was passed he wouldn't and that that that was really the issue as opposed to the amount of time months which also like i said was also the guideline range the question becomes whether the st step act under the discretionary clause would allow the court to disregard a statutory maximum and if chambers found that retroactive guideline errors were correctable it seems that a statutory limit would certainly be required for the courts to impose i and especially in insp specifically in this case mr chambers submitted a senate seeing memorandum when the court requested it after i believe it was after the sentencing reduction report came out so you argue why his senate should be reduced in accordance with the syncing reduction report and he included all of his history classes in the different things you've done at the b o p and as you know the district court made its decision denying using its just scratch and what it perceives as its discretion not to apply the new revised minutes under the st step act but it was done in a text order and nothing was mentioned  all about the mitigating factors that mr calling to me presented for as a reason for his reduced sentence also i believe that substantively unreasonable because the the whole purpose of the f i believe the language of the st step that supports us discretion is limited on the just for core because the as if language even in the most conservative of cases for example what the government argued in the under those circumstances there is a new mandatory minimum i'm going to excuse me a new statutory maximum which under any other circumstances outlined in the briefs is not within the discretion of just trafficking in an amount of five what was it five kilograms here yes there are what would be the maximum sentence posed today today if the defendant were charged with kilograms charged right now you are you would not have twenty eight grams that i believe i misunderstand state or are yes twenty grams i'm sorry yes all right so the various statutes made that change retroactive right yes on your honor that no not so that this defendant had to be sentenced under age forty one with a threshold act it means that the courts can get the defendant the relief that congress has provided within their discretion as the st step i question is to make something retroactive means that it was applicable then as it fiction that's all we look at what we're saying says we focus on this doctor and conviction yes there are in this day after conviction applicable here has a maximum of twenty years both now and retroactively when he was sentenced not when he was sentenced are all right so the whole question is whether the change in the sentence for five grams is retroactive that's correct you're ok you say it's not it is discretionary under the st step act your question or isn't a question but tell me where retroactivity has made discretionary retroactive he means it's either in effect or it's not i don't understand the notion that based upon the policy of which it was done i don't see the senate of the governmental won't push for an individual to have a sense that congress has said we made some mistakes if you go and look at down the line reason this and raise this in a dispar heard it word racial they did this on purpose and they did it with information that was not correct congress is trying to correct something it has the political restraints and doing it directly and on the court so moving in a direction you are pushing th not reduce it off the court can either reduce the sentence within the constraints of the fair sensing act that would be applied at the time the current offense was committed or the court can decline to reduce its that but couldn't give us interpretation between forty and twenty five years cannot get that sin is so you can only get forty what got brought down we took to the statue very much the great yes you are and the reason is because to the reason is because that is what you argued here today i mean it does not that doesn't seem to follow at all i mean i don't i don't see why this is such a a major issue for the government to to to pursue that when you're dealing with retroactive under the fair syncing at congress is seeking to do something clear congress as done it becomes to the cohens and in fact the court and the government figures out a way nature of the judgment the government's position in different cases as much as we can we want to judge to have some discretion we want to do things but there's guidance here provided by congress so don't you think we  indicated it is intention i understand discretion when he gives guidelines are given ranges they are always there but here we have something we all know in this room right now something is wrong with the way this was i'm saying that if threshold of cocaine would have been met by that broke late the threshold of crack would have been met by an enormous amount because only two hundred and eighty grams are required to me one i believe not only a few more seconds i would just like to know unless the court has any other questions i would like to know the spirit of the fairness of the fair sentencing act and i believe judge when point on this earlier on  that that was why the court a stuck with its guns the only question i have and and i'm not speaking for the other judges but the question i have is the impact on these two acts on that sentencing and wan act reduced the sentence but that could only be perspecta and then the nd act seemed to make it retroactive you say not though the nd act of course didn't require a judge to make an adjustment  that's my only concern and i understand your position about the discretion but the whole question here and the judge has a lot of discretion we've approved it in case after case judges have said i'm not going to reduce the sentence because of this or that but the question is when you're faced with a chambers type situation which i think this probably is because the criteria  changed and undermine the original sentencing if it were science today in the question is now is in the busa discretion not to recognize the illegality of continuing with an illegal sentence now as sentence i think you're right on that of the only question if you have a noose and if you have a change which now makes you whole sentence illegal not not are in other words if you're in a range of zero to life the judge can choose to reduce it  god life's the maximum but here it was forty years reduced to twenty years and the and the judge originally gave thirty years which is now above the twenty years and the question is what's a consequence and a quote is in effect referring to the st step that makes those sections of the fair senate sing out retroactive so it was referring to sections two dollars and three dollars of fair sentencing act and how those sections became applying the reduced statutory penalties for crack cocaine offenses retroactively so i think the government's question is the whole application of the first step  is an application that is discretionary the court can step back and say i'm not going to grant the relief i look at it and for reasons of the seriousness of this i think in this case basically was the murder cost reference  of the judge said i'm not going to engage in the st step back and exercise the discretion not to even apply the analysis but the question is when it exercises discretion it is applying it because it gives discretion and  question is where there is an abuse i think but i do think that the discretionary clause even in these circumstances it is confusing because it's not explained that there are limits on it but as i say it might be on the ropes there's a limit on it it's a question of what constitutes an abuse as you know as a general principle if a court commits an error of law that constitutes an abuse of discretion and supreme court noted that many times and so the question is whether this is an error of law to let stand in the legal sense and i think that's the issue that discretions there i don't think we were going to honor congress we have to honor that too not be any other cases and i'd like to look at that closer again before coming to any conclusion for myself or yes there are i believe the discretionary clause as written in the st step the sentence change read to our youth i don't know if there's a new guy behind i knew at the time that the ferret senate seeing ads came out those changes for incorporated into the  the senate some guidelines and they were there was a provision that they were retroactive such that my office filed many motions related to that because the sentencing guidelines commission did allow haven't really certainly as guidelines that made made changes retroactive in order to have people who are sentenced under a stricter drug trafficking scheme have the benefit of synods he's subject to the most favorable guidelines well i understand but i'm my whole subject my whole question is focusing on retroactivity because i think it is nobody's disputing the fact that the judge imposed a legal sentence in this case when it comes whole question is what happened after that in terms of not only the sentence of the statute under which he was sentence which we know was changed time is up i don't know that i can use your question because i'm not certain i have a looked into it or i'm not certain what guidelines that you're referencing well i'm not sure either that's why i'm asking so i apologize i don't know if there's something t