evidence there was evidence at trial that mr had ordered the murder of one of his subordinates is that not support the district judges conclusion that he was a danger to the community government may it please the court my name is michael ferguson i am an assistant united states attorney in the southern district of new york i represent the united states on this appeal and i also represented the united states and the most recent factors this defendant was a major narcotics trafficker for that matter you and drug cartel who possess firearms and as was already noted ordered the execution of one of his subordinates all in the course of distributing over one thousand six hundred kilograms of cocaine judge woods decision to not order a sentence reduction for this defendant was entirely reasonable in particular judge wood's conclusion that the defendant presented a danger to the community or to others  released was far from clearly erroneous it was based on and supported by several considerations st of all it was based on his offense conduct which i have just noted but was extraordinarily serious including the ordering of a murderer it's also worth noting on in that regard that judge wood's assessment of the offense conduct which was not based on what is sometimes called the cold record she presided herself over his months long trial a trial of five or six months and she herself imposed the original sentence of life imprisonment it's worth noting as well that at that trial judge would i'm sorry following that trial judge would specifically credited the evidence that the defendant had ordered the murder of his subordinate she also found and again these are in her findings that at the sentencing proceeding that the defendant offered both perjured testimony at that trial as well as fabricated physical evidence another basis for her conclusion that the defendant still presented a danger to the community was a two thousand and seventeen dismissed disciplinary infraction after many years in jail and nearly four years ago well the defendant was in his late sixt he received a disciplinary infraction for possessing a razor blade stuck in a piece of wood in light of that all of that judge woods finding that the defendant was was still dangerous and presented a danger if released was entirely reasonable that finding was also not as was also put forward in in the  was not contradicted by judge wood's comments at sentencing if the court were to review the full sentencing transcript it would find that judge wood was extremely thoughtful engaged with the defendant's arguments and acknowledged when certain factors appeared to weigh in his favor but on the whole what what the court would find is that judge would found that this defendant had ordered a murder that it was not disproportionate to sentence him to life imprisonment considering the one thousand plus kilograms of cocaine and the effect that that amount of drugs has on people who lives including the lives of children and she ultimately found that she would sentence him murderer stated that even if she could depart from the guidelines at that time she would sentence him to life imprisonment and she would have sentenced him to life imprisonment even if she had not found that he had ordered the execution of one of his employees to turn briefly to one other issue that is raised for the st time in this argument it was not raised in the initial brief in the proceedings below and there was no reply brief filed and that is the issue relating to this court's  points that are helpful to to note the st is that broeker was primarily concerned about what what a district court is permitted to consider when evaluating what's called extraordinary and compelling circumstances after brooker brooker made clear that courts are free to consider any evidence that may be but for in this case as was already noted judge would essentially already had adopted that view even though she was making her decision prior to broker and indeed she found that extraordinary compelling circumstances did exist in this case so in that regard it is completely in accord with broker now there is a subsection to the guidelines provision subsection t relating to a defendant's dangerousness that under brooker would no longer be a political here judge would did cite that subsection but as was also already noted by judge  this court is under no obligation to even consider this claim it being raised for the st time at oral argument if it is considered the a clickable standard of review would be plain error and it is very clear based on judge woods opinion that the defendant is unable to satisfy the rd prong of planar review which is essentially a prejudiced standard because even if guideline section one b one  danger that he wanted if released that compassionate release was inappropriate