the eighty's i believe he served twenty years of his time subsequently there was a moment seventy two to the sentencing guideline that came about and it reduced his his guideline from level forty to criminal history six to level forty criminal history six and so i brought a motion for reduction under section thirty five eighty two before judge been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the sentencing commission pursuant to twenty eight u s c nine forty four so there's no question that his sentencing range was subsequently lowered the problem is that if you look at the sound seen table his guideline didn't change it was three sixty to life at level forty two criminal history three and at level forty criminal history three the guideline says three sixty to life so the question is has there been a santa scene range a reduction in the sentencing range we would contend then we contended in the district court that basically what's on this sentencing table is you have six columns you have forty three offense levels so we have two hundred fifty eight different  sentencing ranges technically they're called guideline ranges but if you look at the application note that's cited in my brief it suggests that in determining a change in the sentencing range you look at was there a change in the offen level and was there a change in the criminal history category and so it's our contention that applying that language of the  one b one point one zero which is typically talks about it says eligibility for consideration under thirty five eighty two c two is triggered only by an amendment listed in subsection d that lowers the applicable guideline arrange i e the guideline arrange that corresponds to the fence level and criminal history category so if that is correct it's our contention that we don't really look at what the number is in the box on the sentencing table we look at the combination of the offense level in the criminal history to see if we move down a box then we move down to boxes or is there some other provision such as the clear offender guidelines that would indicate that you don't move out of that box so that's the basis of the argument it's a one issue case your honor it was terrorism or a prior case of failure in this court that seems to suggest contrary but i believe that i think then there is no eligibility i don't believe that that well i guess there's a question there was not as it was originally brought up on a different point well the reason the reason was not released and it was published was because it dealt with the question of whether this was ok but the the question about whether you're eligible for relief if you're guideline range hasn't changed record was so straightforward and based on prior cases that it really wasn't open for much debate  replace the court counsel good morning the district court properly denied defendants motion for section thirty five eighty two c sentence for action because despite the sentencing commission's change to the narcotics table and two thousand well if it's not as significant for this defendant as it might be for some others your honor given the seriousness of his crime if he had been in a much lower offense category or a lower lower criminal history than a change of two levels would in fact make a difference and make him eligible for the district court to consider his thirty five fifty three arguments bush because and under the guidelines of the time that he was sentenced in one thousand nine hundred six ninety i'm sorry thirty kilograms of heroin and qualified for the highest offense level which was thirty eight amendment in two thousand and fourteen the amount of heroin that would qualify a defendant for that highest category was substantially increased to ninety kilograms or more of heroin so because the defendant's heroin quantity that he was found responsible for was seventy five kilograms of heroin under these new amendments if he hadn't been so high up on the table for other reasons he would've been eligible for the district court to consider that this defendant however was also a leader of this this vast distribution conspiracy so he had a four level increase and even though his base offense level dropped to thirty six under the new guidelines he still had that four level seventy five rather than it was sort of the judge should at least consider he did not and he would not have been that wouldn't have and appropriate for him to was a very conservative amount given the evidence that had been presented at the trial in this case beyond that however what the district court judge was charged with doing was making an analysis of whether under section thirty five eighty two the defendant's sentencing range had been lowered by the sentencing commission which it had not and further the district court was required to comply with it the less my question is what would prevent the judge from reduces the statute thirty five eighty two which both requires that the sentencing range be lowered and also requires that that a reduction be consistent with policy statements by the sentencing commission here the sentencing commission and how and one b one point ten had a very clear policy statement that any reduction has to be consistent or i'm sorry that that a term  reduction in the term of imprisonment will not consistent with the policy statements and is not authorized under the statute if the amendment does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range and that is the case here so the judge was just one quick point to follow up on your question judge just essentially what we ask for is a hearing to see if mr mccarroll has been good has a year in his ged what has he done with himself during this thirty three years in prison but judge  i don't have jurisdiction to even hear this because there has not been a change in the number we contend while there was a change in the sentencing range so you have jurisdiction give us a hearing he says no there's been no change in the three sixty to life number therefore you don't get a hearing from headquarters that he wouldn't be authorized to make any change my understanding is he has his opinions as i don't have any jurisdiction under the taylor case to even consider the motion because there's been no reduction in the guideline range now that's guideline range but the thirty five eighty two statute says sentencing range so a different term so i think the issue before this court is what does thirty five eighty two mean to grant jurisdiction where the sentencing range you think sensi way is the statutory statutory and what do you think it means i think it means any box on the sentencing table that's changed if there's been a lower sentencing range or combination of offense levels and criminal history if you move down two boxes as he did from forty two to forty then you get a chance for a hearing to prove your case and the new offense level low end of the the range which in this case would be three sixty he has a chance to prove to the korea you know the thirty three year lot i understand your point i'm trying to understand what you think is the difference you're making a big deal you're telling us that means something different what do you think it means i think it means as the application though and one b one point one zero says it's a combination of the old fence levels and criminal history