eligibility in determining whether an individual is eligible for a thirty five eighty two sentence we duck and dylan instructs the court initially must follow the mandates of guideline section one b one  b one point ten provides a reset and says only permissible where in amendments effect is to lower the prisoner's quote applicable go i line range while appellant agrees that the quantity of narcotics involved in the underlying conspiracy on its surface appears to preclude eligibility the term of orthe applicable guideline range contained in one b one point one ten million dates a broader review than soley the drug quantity amount applicable guideline range is defined in one b one point pens commentary as the guideline range determined pursuing the guideline section one b one point one and one b one point one eighth read specifically requires that what the consider the defendant's role in the offense in determining the applicable guideline range therefore one b one point one makes clear that the district what was required to consider repellents brain and we've rejected that i would have thought the applicable guideline range was what was the applicable guideline range at the time he was sentenced and if the arguments were not now or reject or this case is indeed a case of first impression and that every other case dillon moch every other case that's been considered with respect to this dealt with issues that are out saw it of one b one point one in fact dylan makes clear that its prior denial of a role reduction because that would require new findings of fact and rios this court made clear that's not permissible the district court's error here is that a pilla didn't seek a new factual hearing upon the issue of his role in the offense rather that what he was requesting is for the district court to utilize its prior factual findings and apply those facts to read evaluate the legal issue of his appeal the argument was initially made sentencing it was not raised on appeal because we didn't see there was a basis at that time because three b one point two between the date of the imposition of sentence and the time that this motion was made was substantially revised and that revision would have had and could have had a significant impact on a reset isn't here that revisionist specifically three b one point two now provides that an individual's role in the offense is to be be reviewed in considered as it relates to the co participants in that particular offense as opposed to the average participant nationwide and here in this type of conspiracy which was a huge huge huge quantity of drugs when my client had a relatively low insular role in the offense he might have been a big participant in our contacts activity but as it related to this massive massive international drug conspiracy under the new guidelines it was a very specifically different view and i would submit that because one b one point one specifically requires an evaluation of role that the what now have the authority to re evaluate in the context of one b of two three b one point two what his role would be and most significantly here what would have happened if the court made that determination he would then have been eligible pursuant to two of the one point one a full life for a significant reduction in his role that would have been from thirty eight to thirty four that is something that's the term and under the drug effect at that latter language suggests that there is to be no recalculation of the guidelines and i don't understand how you get around that help me out i get around it by the application no one which states eligibility offense level and for mental history category determined pursuant to one b one point one which is at means the guideline range calculated by the court not the guideline range agreed to pipe the parties they may have agreements among themselves and all that this this guy thought would be meaningless when it says it'll eat you leave all other guideline application decisions on affected your you're basically saying that applicable guideline range means it please the court my name is not in more for the united states will raise claims that the district court here misapprehended its authority in determining whether he was eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to section thirty five eighty jussi to disregard its prior unambiguous language of section one b one tend to allow for florrie son and something that is explicitly prohibited in a thirty five eighty two c proceeding it's applicable guidelines freakout yes and he's e q you've heard in that it says that the thing that needs to lower the senate has to be in memet to the guidelines the amendment to the guidelines here mehmet seven hundred to change the drug quantity table and for this defendant that change to the door kind of quantity table has no effect on the calculation of his guidelines because the amount of drugs that he was responsible for still puts him at the highest possible level in looking then to the commentary once the actual section one b one ten is no help to him he seems to ignore the exact same sentence that he seems to rely upon in support of his argument the same sentence that he looks to in the commentary makes clear that the defendant is only eligible again it makes the same argument where the amendment is what's lowering the defendant's guideline he doesn't argue that the amendment has any effect on his guideline because it doesn't and then he tries to claim that by looking at one by one  you have to recalculate the guidelines and make new and contrary findings that the court previously made at sentencing that's not what this contemplates as i think you were referring earlier it's just making clear what the guideline ranges but in any event what needs to be the thing triggering the change of the guidelines as is clear in section one b one ten has to be the amendment which hasn't changed to scotland's at all here and if they're not a questions will rest one look to the rules of leniency as except where for my brief which i won't go into in the field this point and second i wish to emphasize that this is to some extent the case of first impression every other decision concerning the korea fended determination rio rios deals with the question of whether or not if there were no findings of fact on drug one to be made below there needs to be a hearing to determine drug money no cases ever dealt with the question of