the thing which is a little bit different than others and  limitations within the statute are that it must look at the thirty five to three a's especially factors which are the same ones that booker tells courts to look to and also that it must take into account difficult policy statements and that's such a reduction cannot be in consistent with your political policies get the government here has argued that the policy statements at issue here that to reduce below the amended sentencing guidelines range would be inconsistent with those but defendant contends that in fact the first of the policy statements that the government has pointed to are not inconsistent with a further reduction below the many guidelines range application no two which is that other which is the part of which has been pulled out from that is that other statement but i think it's probably read here to really go to calculate like other decisions made in calculating what guidelines if and is receiving so that this argument is sort of somewhat there seems like there's a second bite of the apple reason to not apply five life sentences in a way that's constitutional after booker i mean that you have an opportunity here and the defendant is being respected and there's no reason why he should have a sentence that doesn't comport  to the sentence under the guidelines and evaluated whether or not where within the new amended guidelines range his new sentence should be after the date of a decision so i don't believe that that constitutes a retroactive application and he's not arguing  cited in the government's brief that to the booker cannot be taken into consideration or be grounds for reducing a defendant sentenced under thirty five e to c two because all of those cases involved defendants who were in fact an eligible go to the characteristics of the defendant however other courts have held that such post rehabilitative conduct is not permitted and thirty five eighty two seats here means that the court can just look at the original sentencing goals and i'm not sure that a debilitating disease time but the defendant suffering from really needs to be calculated into that that would seem to be something that he would be best addressed in a different manner but would not necessarily be subject good morning my dad was david knows but i represent the government in this case and if i may i'd like to just jump in right to where the court kind of traditional off here because i think it's a very important issue even though it's not the first time i have liked and that is the issue of if you well i think it is an  well i would say in response that it is accept for the very narrow exception outlined in thirty five eighty two thirty two which is that that very specific when a guideline range has been amended that is a sentencing when the triggering factor is the guideline change correct that's right so now we take the person back we say there's been a guideline change so we need to have a recent thing and the very guideline has now been changed after has been declared by the supreme court well guidelines came to be advisory so isn't that really a function of the market as opposed to a concern about are we going to re well i think your honor that that seeks a consideration the very specific language of the statute which says that we are addressing an issue that is that is a guy fine and then meant it is not a statutory amendment it is not a supreme court decision and the reason they any other characteristics or issues that might come out but i think your honor that that it goes back to the underlying principle that that book or makes them makes the guidelines advisory but it's not it's not undermining the well i think the guidelines are considered and the and booker and the thirty five to fifty three factors are considered in this when you do take into consideration whether to sentence a person at the lower end or to some other area of the guideline range the new amended it is i'm saying it's mandatory because of the sense of steam that was set up at the time of the sentence is the underlying principle that i'm advocating here and that is that the sentencing scheme under the guidelines as that was set up in one nine hundred ninety three in this case and i think that finally also another important and very important point to keep in mind is the the idea of a new sentencing is a very it's not simple that thirteen years in this case thirteen years later is a very complicated task where you have different attorneys it is not a simple idea of just remove the pre sentence report what about finality for the victims in this case the witnesses the defendant court to consider in a very cavendish very specific context whether to sentence a defendant with a new amended range versus i new resentencing it would be very difficult for a judge in this case for example based on you know a handful of comments from the sentencing court it's a different judge the sentencing judge in this case has retired to go back and based on a couple of comments from the court it's there's no doubt the court was displeased and had to regret having the sense this person that such i arrange but to go back and to revisit so what was the procedure procedure that was followed in this case was your honor the the new sentencing judge or the new just record judge in this case reviewed the transcripts from the sentencing and probably also re here exactly but the reasoning is the same the reasoning is that this and the language is very specific when it says one of the reasons it uses for keeping this very cabin in the succession very narrow is when it says all gu amendments are addressed in the statute but not statutory amendments and in the case that the next logical step is the united states v price which is the tenth circuit case that also has all the the line of reasoning that goes along with the idea that this is a how when you raise that there would be some kind of administrative hurdle if the judge still has to consider other thirty five thirty three i think is the only difference we're talking about here between you and mr specific issue when you have a sensing scheme where a person is available to have an amendment say for example we had instead of mr hicks who had a firearm we had a drug dealer who was dealing the same amount of drugs but he was not using