and in applying that standard in the context of sentencing decisions one of the issues is whether the court relied on a factor that it either shouldn't have to live on or relied on factor too much in other words assigned too much weight to that factor now in the decision denying relief under the st step the congress someday equalizing the treatment of crack versus cocaine offenses but it also used more general language stating that it wanted to make clear that quote this is the absolute bottom under any scenario that i can envision including congress passing a bill making the powder versus crack cocaine ratio want to one and  not argument a little bit clearer sure are you arguing that bench press kit was not allowed to consider judge robinson alternative four or maybe together we feel that this was not a factor that the court permissibly could rely on because it really was not a statement that was part of the  sentencing analysis that was subject to the adversary process at the st sentencing judge robinson did reference a one specific turn of events such as the equalization of crack versus cocaine ratio he made clear that he was making a much more general statement about belief that he would not reduce the sentence under any scenario but there also is there any suggestion that judge prescott used the comments as binding well i'm not sure well i think the court certainly viewed them as highly persuasive because it relied on them but so i think and when a court in permissibly relies on a factor i'm not sure if they have to conclude that factor is binding on them i mean you know i just do in the event of the recent events usually those kind of predictions carry weight when they are with respect to a specific way to get an issue usually a guideline issue and the reason i think that's appropriate or at least to it nick stanton's appropriate is because you have something that's an issue that's been tested by the adversary process and a record is made the facts and nine years after the original sentence and the facts and circumstances are not rigid they're not set in stone there you know than a decade has gone by where been living you know continuing to live his life and to grow old and go from a man in his early thirty's to a man in his early forty's so you know at a at a bare at a minimum i our position is that the district court attached to wait sign too much weight to the sector even if it were permissible for the court in some way to take note of that which we don't concede but certainly the way this decision with prominently featuring judge robinson's language and quoting from it extensively and then specifically relying on that as a factor in denying that was at a nothing about requiring hearings and i believe that every circuit to have addressed that issue has said that hearings are not a  a ruling that the that the factors that we are contesting here were either not permissible or too much weight was assigned to them and so there you are you think that the the relief that's permitted is imposition of a reduced sentence for sure about that because you're asking basically for a decision possibility here it seems to me well you know again i think it comes back to the issue of whether what  possibility that you could increase and therefore you know i just worry about that the st step back is certain defendants the opportunity to seek a reduced sentence but not a right even if a defendant is eligible for relief under the st step back to the statute does not require a court to reduce the defendant's sent whether and to what extent a sentence ought to be reduced or an eligible defendant is a matter of the district court found discretion and this court will only overturn such decisions where there has been an abuse of discretion here judge crosscut the client to further reduce expectancy that was sixty two months below the bottom end of today's guidelines this exercise of discretion with not an abuse of discretion and it fel well within the range of permissible sentence sentencing decisions and reaching this decision just prescott had before her a substantial record which included among other things the defendant disciplinary educational and work record prescott made clear the reasons that infirmed informed her exercise of discretion st she gave credit to the defendant exemplary record while incarcerated notwithstanding the government's contention that the defendant the bad conduct was viol of discretion indeed judge robinson had the familiarity with the defendant having presided over his trial and prior to sentencing and finally prescott noted that the defendant's existing sentence was sixty two months sentence and that the court held it more the district court retains broad discretion to determine which factors are relevant in determining whether and to what extent to reduce a sentence  version of the st step back here it says that a court that imposed a sentence for recovered offense may on motion of the defendant impose a reduced sentence that sections two dollars and three dollars get a fair sentence exact have relied on judge robinson's prior comment and that it should be sent back for reconsideration of the motion now whether that involves a hearing or or in calling an offending in for resentencing or or whatever at a bare minimum we think the court should be should have to reconsider the sentence with instructions that to much except