eleven and the drug guidelines were introduced in till two thousand and fourteen so how can the ex post facto cause benefit defend if you rely on a guideline which wasn't passed until after that if they did reduce the severity of the guidelines that there was a guideline one be one point ten which provided the judge with a liberal standard and liberal authority to grant a reduction below the newly revised guideline range so if the question is does the defendant have the right to rely on favorable laws that were in effect at the time that the crime was committed reliance is at the core of the ex post facto cause there was a favorable legal standard at one b one point ten was more favorable than the current standard in terms of getting rules for applying these retroactive  they said look this only applies to increasing sentences good time game time statutes only reduce sentences it's not within the expo's fact it was a supreme court said no the florida game time statute comes within the ex post fact he had the right to do more favorable standards at the time crime was committed even though it reduces the set and strategy increases so the question then is well has the supreme in effect and the supreme court dealt with that in the we're three grant case which you cite in the brief but i think it's an important quote so i'll just read it briefly we have previously recognize that a prisoner's eligibility for reduced imprisonment is a understand your argument that one of the problems here that you've an additional problem you face is that a matter of seven eighty two didn't exist at the time of the s one point ten reliance on the fact that if they were to make a retroactive reduction in the guidelines that there would be a good standard one the long one ten that would give the judge discretion over the decision whether to reduce it and also the to get a good time or duction but in a later case they said well you can change parole hearings and commutation here is they don't have to be so closely spaced you can happen over a longer period of time and the rationale for that was well he he still has the right to get his hearings but if you take away his right to use the old statute he's totally taken away from that neck and sort of what happens here this isn't just a situation where the sentencing guidelines raise the bar this is a situation where the sentencing guidelines by the door that is there's nothing that a person in mr school used position can do to meet their requirements and get a lower sentence it's not like you can take a college course or get a  ged or show good conduct while he was in in prison no matter what he does he can't get below that minimum guideline now if they passed a new statute which says well in order to get this one b one point ten reduction you have to get a ged take a college course show some good conduct show some spiritual development if you have a statute like that that's something a person can eat and arguably it's not doesn't violate the ex post sense commission change that policy statement or not on the one point that why did they change it i don't know why they changed it i have to presume that they wanted to be more severe with the defendants but that's commutation we rely on those arguments but i think that the brief statement that yeah unless there's a question discretion was in terms of what it could do and it properly filed thirty five eighty two motion and the argument was is look given that courts are interpreting the stepfamily we don't want to have a sentencing disparity issue with regard to different defendants and different districts are simply going to make this very clean and now you have the resulting to be a that's for the court would you distinguish weaver yes your honor very much so i think the key is that this isn't a case where eligibility was given to the defendant for a sentencing reduction and then yanked away and that's what the case and weaver was and mr siegel quickly points out that's a good time or gain time make a mistake provided he didn't step out of line so for example if he sends to a ten year sentence he knows he's getting out in seven so when we are what happens is the florida legislature says ok we're going to change that phony a little bit by the way it's to your detriment so now you're getting out and i think there's a two year difference in weaver in terms of was released it was so there it's very clear if the court's going back to what the standard is here there's more punishment but for that law than there was at the two thousand and nine at the time of my plea at the time i said think at the court looks at section one b one point ten at any of those times the defendant is not eligible for a sentencing reduction because of the corps pointed out in this tricycles argument minutes weren't yet listed and this court has been very clear that eligibility is absolutely tied to those amendments you don't get through the front door unless one of those amendments isn't place so did was clearly distinguish what you are because at the time of the defendant's offense at the time of his plea at the time of his sentencing he was not eligible for a sentencing reduction under one b one point some similarity between that and weaver you are because again i think it goes back to what eligibility was at the time not a speculation as to what was going to happen in the future and i think that's the key distinction between is he's saying well look at some point in the future of a body which in the end has estimate discretion in this area which is the sentencing commission might pass and then that that might apply to you in those circumstances perhaps you could get a similar variance to the web now yeah and that's what many sentenced the judge says you know hey they got lies one thirty five to one sixty eight but you're entitled to a variance you're entitle to something better your title less if that's the run of the mill sentence for that crime remember i'm entitled to a variance memon i should be varying below what you said is the right amount and this takes the ability away and says court is going and what i would say is in this context it's different in the sense that again we're going back to a body that has discretion that would be kind of like saying in the one to ten it takes the discretion away totally wrong but i would argue your honor is that th sentencing he had no such right the district court had no such discretion to reduce is set because if you look at essentially a one of one b one point tent that's what the authority section is that's where it says look here's the only place and a time when the sentencing commission is going to give discretion to the district court and at all three of those times in the case of mr sylvia the district court had absolutely no discretion to reduce sets so therefore if he's third cassim of the future circumstances under how the sense of mission might pass a subsequent amendment is purely speculating as to you had this provision that something might happen in the future snot totally unlikely sensi commission has done that you know i certainly if i were representing the defendant today and or ask questions and the zero nine language or see here it be hard pressed to say you know you have no chance in the future to get a reduction of comes along here since he because there's complaints end it turns on eligibility and at the time of the defendant's offense plea incensing he was not eligible and i forgot about to leave the court with one takes away the eligibility for it there eons below a new guideline rate that never existed before it what i would say is this going back to essentially there is there was never any eligibility because we never get past one b one point and a one there was never an amendment and place so in the end you always look at what the remedy is for a next post facto violation of the gravity is you go back to the sentencing scheme at the time of the offense and if you look at one b one point ten not to be a dead horse here that the tide is offense is not them involve a contingency that is that when you are applying for a good time there is a contingency that your behavior will need it and that christian officials will come to the conclusion that your behavior has met it so it's not an exact match but there is