case based on the issue of whether the district court authority in the thirty five eighty two c to revisit sentences that it previously imposed in two cases think it is significant that there are two separate cases here one was a case involving conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and powder cocaine the second case involved an attempt by the defendant to obtain two kilograms of powder cocaine the guidelines if clickable guidelines as determined by the court at the original sentencing hearing was that the defendant was a career offender the defendant to pay state maximum life imprisonment as to both of those cases even under the provisions of the fair syncing act and therefore the clickable guidelines for both cases was a career offender guidelines which was two sixty two the thirty five eighty two state or revisited the court initially found that it did not have authority to revisit the sentence what i would refer to as a power cocaine case but that it did have authority to revisit the sentence of thirty five eighty the crack cocaine case since something that was passed subsequent to the sentencing and i do understand there are two different cases and i know that you see that there was a lot of discussion about the fair sentencing act relating to the crack cocaine cases but not relating to the power and so and about all of them sort of running together but you don't disagree that she well tell me why you think she could revisit the sentence especially as it related to crack the crack cocaine because thirty one of eighty two is triggered if the guidelines subsequently lowered by the sentencing commission and she disagreed with the career offender guidelines because one of the one of the fences i've missed let me back up i don't know that she said i disagree with that she thought that it was too harsh because one of the qualifying convictions was a conviction that occurred when the defendant was a juvenile hanging committed a rather serious arm robbery so for those reasons she said she was going to depart well at the time the court believed that the mandatory minimum sentence for the crack ca's was two hundred forty months subsequently dorsey was decided and it would have been actually one hundred twenty months at the time in the crack cocaine case she realized that she could have soon but she realized that the mandatory minimum for the power of cocaine case with one hundred twenty months which she still sends to defend it to two hundred forty months  stors also and she said in the transcript i feel that the mandatory minimum of twenty years and plenty of time and she goes on to say twenty years for a long time and i feel that the m is the is the career offender got a line and she very dear departed from the career offender guidelines to reach the senate that she also might decide it and for those reasons since the a political guideline was not affected point but again i come back to this case as it is very similar to the pembroke phase in that starting point was the career vendor and that's the guidelines she started from that to your political guideline and that has not been changed in a long line of cases in the circuit that say that thirty five eighty two does not apply to a defendant whose son is kind of a career under god one so even though she may have said i'm going to go down to that what i believe is the mandatory minimum for one of these faces but it still doesn't allow the court to revisit the senate in the thirty five eighty two because the starting point affable guideline range was a career fender guideline and that never has been but it was the applicable gottleib range and you know maybe maybe that's the difference and our interpretation up of the transcript well it's it's my recollection that in both the original sentencing hearing and  also in the in the resurfacing hearing she said the starting point that we have is the career fender gone the fender is a career fender under the guidelines and that's the starting point and as i said she even reiterated that when light of the fact that one of these convictions took place when he was was fourteen she never really made the kind of statement that said for instance that i disagree with the with the crack cocaine versus power cocaine then departed from that and then went down to at least two hundred and forty months on most cases and so that being absent got my mind that hadn't been changed she may have disagreed with the career fender but the career fender was the starting point for her and i think she said that as i said in both hearings and she she departed from that in making what she thought was the appropriate sentence in both cases and the fact that the is that all right so that's the government's position i will assume they're taking their davis position i laid it out there the government there were big stuff that they kept in all that is  i want to respond to questions you asked me about the cea clickable guideline range in the original sentencing hearing to page twenty two which is id number four fifty nine court said the range with a career enhanced man is the proper place to start because mr webb does qualify as a career offender and so the starting point is an offense level thirty four the criminal history of six would also point out that even when she decided that she could resign it's under thirty five eighty two in the second re sentencing hearing again to page two of that hearing which i believe is i think number twenty one seventy four she said mr offender guidelines but even if you are saying oh she was really considering the drug guidelines the only thing that changed from the first since i'm hearing the second sentencing hearing was the application of the ten year mandatory minimum as opposed to the twenty year mandatory minimum and thirty five eighty two specific requires that there must be some type of lowering of the guideline range by the sentencing commission as a blue case points out the changing of the mandatory minimum is not such a lowering of the guideline range by the since commission is an act of congress and therefore since between the first hearing and second sentencing there was no reduction likable got a lot of range by the by the sentencing commission therefore the judge did not have the authority to revisit either one of the sentences neither one of these cases