was to address the fact that congress specifically omitted or omitted language limiting consideration yes but they didn't they did in this regard you are you are required if you can't prevail court may not modify a term of imprisonment your entire argument is built upon the difference between imposed and modified and as a supreme court in dillon on the th circuit and heads would noted based his choice and a mistake in reading of the facts and the law saying that there's no evidence that the twenty year mandatory minimum judge jackson imposed w minimum had been reduced to ten years right he didn't do that yes he knew that but he has he didn't take into account the guy the twenty one thousand guideline range which indicates that his starting point of twenty years was in the best view of the current sentencing commission guidelines nine to ten years too high our primary claimant point one is that the judge relied on the mistake  range under the st step that he doesn't have to they can compare both guidelines he i think respected judge jackson's expressed determination in two thousand and eight that the career of friend or guideline range was ten year the court my name is to any background i represent the united states in the st step action the court correctly identified that this defendant did receive a reduction so the eligibility question is off the table i think the cases upon which the dependent primarily rely relate to the fact that the defendant guideline range here did not change if the court examines the probation report regarding eligibility the defendant remains a career offender here because the and the guideline range even the career offender guideline range does not change the defendant here we filed an and fifty one dollars enhancement thus the statutory maximum was life even after the reduction under the fair sentencing act even after the application of bat under the st step act the change what it does if it's not a career is not a groove and i would argue that that was not raised in the defendant's opening brief and therefore it's forfeited and i believe if the court examined closely the transcript of the hearing they did not indicate that the court should be indicated that the court should consider that only in terms of three thousand five hundred and fifty three factors not that the guideline range had in fact change so i think that supported it i think in terms of it's not in the opening brief and it should not be considered the court found that the guideline range did not change but that he could they did well how do we know that that's what you've got to persuade the court has already decided in williams that a defendant need not be present for a recent thing hearing so i don't in the event that it was a here the change in the guidelines that had occurred in the definition of a crime of violence there's a lot of gray in the world with all the time if you're painting the world as either black or white i think even good good no defendants received a retroactive benefit for that under back so that is not one of the things that is mandated to be reconsidered under the fairest st step act so no court has many courts have been cited in our brief as well as our rule twenty eight j better had i had found that you cannot reconsider that career under designation now the government didn't take the position that the court couldn't consider that today guideline ranges are different and therefore under the thirty five thousand five hundred and thirty eight factors it could go all the way down to one hundred and twenty months if it s but i think this argument of tethering the two hundred and twenty years completely in co ax what the judge was analyzing is the guideline range was sixty to like and under the new consideration three hundred and sixty dollars to life so the twenty year is already ten years below the guideline range so when the judge was exercising his discretion to determine whether or not to go further down whether to go all the way to one hundred and twenty months the defendant had requested he had to consider that the guideline range was three hundred and sixty months of life and were the defendant not a beneficiary  retroactive so the judge is looking at mr harris as an individual who but the work the change in the statutory penalties the drug discretion to  that's why this is not substantively unreasonable he relied on findings judge jackson had made that the defendant had manipulated the judicial system that he had committed perjury that he while knowing from a person is referred to his reduction as flights if he had applied the or adopted the career offender guidelines which he never did it would be twelve years below the floor that's not what a judge would call a slight reduction light going from twenty years to eighteen years that's always the argument he had he had he had to take into account the new guideline range or i thought your argument was