the boot camp sentence reduction program is based on a complex web of statutes guidelines and rules that forty forty six statute by its own terms established bootcamp and authorized funding for each year they said that the b o p may place a prisoner in boot camp and if successfully completed the boot camp shall reduce the period of time if that's what the g o p provides in its rules guidelines also provided for recommendation as a necessary step in order to go to the boot camp you had to have a judicial recommendation the sentencing statutes provide for sensing recommendations and thirty six twenty one  such as five one point seven so in one thousand nine hundred six with notice and comment for the first time the sentence reduction is put into effect by the bureau of prisons and it provides for a very standard eyes norm of how you get a six month sentence reduction if you're in the sense that ration is mr right it will be thirty month sentence and you're supposed to have voluntary surrender to the boot camp so with that complex in place the judge imposes sentence with a recommendation for who can with the full expectation that instead of serving thirty months harsh ration it will be six months of actual prison a period of community corrections including an extended period of home confinement at an actual reduction and the question here is going to bureau of prisons with no notice to anyone with no steps of procedural regularity or consultation with the judicial conference or other  that they didn't want to continue this program anymore because they have other places where they want to place their money isn't that an administrative decision the board approved of prisons can file content that it's a shared decision and i believe that's what exactly i think i think that there should be some options that i believe that there is one from the justice regularly on that subject and there should be because others hortatory not mandatory and that's all i'm asking for here all i wanted was a chance to explain why this does not save a dime to terminate this program this was a great program and the board nov sixteenth through the november a week later they're telling my client there was no consideration here about how it should occur and there should have been input it should have been examination he's there is no study done on the federal who can't program that what's the remedy now missed the remedy is a grant of court is the only place in the country where we are going to ever have a chance to undo what happened and it should be undone it was an error geisha of power by the executive branch disregarding the judicial rol disregarding the d o j role disregarding the role of the defendants in providing input about whether this program should be terminated it's not too much to ask the ordinarily have  boot camp for example if there isn't a change in the guidelines the guidelines stays the same the fact program is extinguished because of budgetary constraints means that the guidelines are not enforced until the government  funds the program that's not so unusual i don't think that's what the v o p did what they did is they ripped up the guideline into small pieces and threw it into the wind they said this program is over it's terminated then say well we're we don't have enough money right now we're going to fight again and the ninety four specifically refers to the judicial conference judges district judges all over the country have experience with this program they're not saying that it's the sentencing and i think this has information has the power to decide that them no it is congress saying that these parties including the judicial conference and including the bureau of prisons shall tell the sentencing commission when they think that there is a change needed in the way the sentence the policy statements are set out and that change is implemented through the judicial conference having the ability to say see all the district court judges got together and said this is a terrible idea to terminate this you make you may ignore that recommendation that may be what happens but there is a procedure to be followed same way under the a p a minister of procedure act notice and comment let the public put some sunshine on this question because this was a terrible decision statements that they made about studies they were telling judge lake that they're that they've done extensive consideration wasn't extensive consideration it was a or day work project  in the creation of the program i believe that the program was the result of hearings at which there was testimony and ironically the bureau of prisons was no none too pleased with it they were saying we don't think this is a great idea and congress  you ever heard of earmarks for bridges sure micromanaged those i think we are we don't have any dispute that the your presence has wide range on how big how whether they're going to consolidate them in one place move them to have to spend more money i don't see where the distinction lies between between saying that we can't make them and more and they can spend zero based on their own decision i think it goes to that footnote that we relied on to this report called dicta from the supreme court you can't render a statute in the military and that's what happens here we know you might as well not have a forty forty six you might as well not have a five f one point seven they're gone and they're gone with the unilateral action that a no type of input from anyone else no notice and comment no proffered to mock democracy procedure of having the people speak before executive agency act and of course also operates retroactive sentence in a few minutes i don't know that i understand why it is that she can't complain about what happened to the program generally the reason your honor is because even if were you to reinstitute the federal boot camp that been within the province of the agency the bureau of prisons here decided how to spend its money decided in this case that there weren't funds available and under forty forty six which talks about may under thirty six twenty one d which talks about the bureau of prisons has discretion to make the decision about placement and under the federal regulation five twenty four thirty one which talks about the veil ability of resources all three stand for the proposition that this is that's within the province of europe prison to decide how to operate what about all the mandatory language that your colleague mr of say he was talking about i'm not sure exactly where you get that from three six one twenty one deep as the bureau of prisons shall designate the place of prisoners and in prison it puts that onus right on the b o p s not on this court not on any other commission the other mandatory language talk about what the fencing commission should do if it chose to change things but it doesn't talk about what the bureau has done this court has been reluctant to move into the province of an area of expertise of agency and that area of expertise is what to do with your own resources and the key point is the lump sum appropriation four billion dollars  program was created for a regulatory scheme and if that regulatory scheme was then removed there would be notice and comment but because the program with a stablish or internal bureau prisons memoranda it's a big difference there is no notice requirement because it's a general statement of judiciary says but the person who can that person is automatically in it's always been subject to availability of your resources it's always been subject to the bureau of prisons making that final call does this person merit being in a boot camp for whatever reason they're mandatory with this that judge baier asked about the mandatory language of thirty six twenty one b every time we cite in our breaking vote there is language that thirty six twenty one the requires individualized consideration based on the bible as the factors that include the recommendation of the judge and policy statements which include the can they are required to look at that as one of the recognized in the implementing the program they've through chosen a number of criteria my client needs every criteria they can make those types of decisions but discretion requires individual that is exercise going was not talking about this question about whether your that is the limit there is a limitation from the statutes about where a lump sum appropriation first of all these cases that they cite vidual does not involve human freedom it does not involve a the program continued in a different form but the same people were given the same service here no one received a sentence reduction before this class of four thousand people every year were