are categorical crimes of violence those issues are currently submitted in a number of appeals with priority over this case the arguments are virtually the same and all of those cases so i don't intend to focus on those issues today but i did want to note that i filed a twenty eight j letter last week regarding the poor circuit decision and taylor that supports the arguments raised by mr ray and likewise undermines the government's position today i'd like to begin by discussing the th amendment issue which provides an alternative bases to be kate mr waite sentence and dream and for the sentencing and made clear that brutal sentences like the one imposed on mr waite were never intended for him his sentence as compared to defendants within his jurisdiction and nationwide is excessive and as such his sentence should be vacated his personal facts are pretty compelling to mr weight was forced to trial to fight a false accusation of murder and he was acquitted of those jury of those murder the judge police and in united states the hallway described as a stacked nine hundred and twenty four see case as quote a window into wine excessive the parity of sentences to racial primarily on the screen court's decision and harmala and i think this case presents and key distinctions from carmelite st the very statute used by the prosecutors to force the judge to have been sentenced to over one hundred years in prison if he were sentenced today thus the gravity of mr waits offenses in relation to his sentence in light of the st step back easily demonstrates the  criteria and then mr weight easily hurdles over the next to any one sentence even within the same calendar year after the passage of the st step to act with exactly the same criminal history  exact same offense conduct would have received a sentence of less than half of what mr waite received and then of course he meets the rd criteria nationwide likewise nationwide mr waite received a sentence double that similar defendant know one of the government's principal argument in response is that congress intended for mr waits brutal sentence were also would have made the st step act retroactive well i think there are several responses to that st the legislation passed so clearly there is a significant change this was bipartisan legislation during a conservative administration it represented a clarification of the law that brutal sentences like the one this year we see should no longer can tolerate it the government's argument regarding the st steps to act lack of retroactivity suggest that this court should not consider the effect of a radically changed sentence on it and then meant analysis if congress does not make that change retroactive if what was required was a change in law and that change must be made retroactive then there would never be a need for a cement relief period there would never be any th amendment claim and that just doesn't make sense after all insall of the court said no penalty is per se constitutional and even a single day in prison could be const unconstitutional and i think in the end sometimes the courts need to step in to recognize constitutional violations like the th amendment because it can't wait for congress to catch up we've seen that in the context of juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison for non homicide offenses so the criteria developed in solemn strikes that balance between protecting people from excessive punishment well not intruding into legislative autonomy and i think it's also notable that the st step act greatly expanded judicial discretion to reduce sentences even after sentence has been imposed so while congress didn't specify that section four or three courts to among other things next unduly harsh sentences by giving federal judges sentencing discretion to modify a sentence on the basis of extraordinary and compelling reasons th for sentencing reduction and we've seen just such rulings and just for courts across the country and such rulings support mr waits claim that his sentence is grossly disproportionate now the government also cites in its brief that the law of the case doctrine applies to this th amendment claim all of its cases where the th amendment claim was not raised below involve this case engaging in plain error review and stop you have a minute left thank you second whether a punishment is excessive this judge not by the standard for month ago ago the court rejected that same arguments the government makes here their role i the government argued that because the th and then the claim had not been raised in the previous appeal had been waived and was subject to the law of the case doctrine in the current appeal nonetheless the court and roy i mean colliers a case in which the court concluded that attempted bank robbery was categorically a crime of violence different statute similar language in some way similar language to  opposed to just changing the law and congress to formally chose not to make it retroactive use not accurate i know it's true congress did not choose to make it retroactive however i believe congress use the word clarify in that very section i think that's congress misuse of the word clarify all right but i mean the fact that it's not retroactive means that clarification or change whatever you want to call it wouldn't be readily applicable looking back to when i so i guess yes i'm not not quite sure i understand the meaning of the question i think the the legislation passed so clearly there has been a significant change and the legislation changed so that this type of sentence is no longer tolerated  irrelevant it's not tolerated going forward and therefore triggers a tremendous concern regardless of congress rejected the opportunity to make it retroactive that's correct your honor but i do the general rule is that a defendant should be sentenced under the law in effect at the time of sentencing that rule has been interpreted to mean that an intervening change in statutory law applies it to be sentencing even when the changelog is not the basis for reversal sentencing and his recent unseeing curd before the st act became law congress also made it quite clear that only sentencing after the passage of the st step act would be covered by the statute and so racketeering enterprise and large scale drug trafficking over the span of many years involving thousands and thousands of individual doses of crack cocaine powder cocaine and marijuana during two of point robberies the appellant discharged its gun and during another one of the robberies a young woman caring for a baby was bound and threatened that one point numerous courts including the supreme court in deal  recognize congressmen ability to pass criminal laws punish repeat violent offenders severely even when those offenders manage to abate prosecution and conviction or their earlier  decision does support our position in the sense that the court ruled that an attempted bank robbery offense does qualify as a crime of violence under section one hundred and twenty four dollars c i think there's some other language in the ceiving these letters and to resolving this case as soon as practicable we reserve decision and we will take this case on the submission