of that constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons the district court denied the st ground on the merits and denied the nd ground on the basis that it lacked the tortie to grant the motion fuentes have failed to comply with the exhausted requirements of the statute and failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a cent reduction so what do we do with the failure to exhaust because to remain on or dismissal of the claim without prejudice so he can renew it and given the length of time that's passed since his initial motion i think that makes the most sense the circumstances ha or or deny deny the motion but on the nd grounds should dismiss or without prejudice in my reply brief we also noted that the remaining question is whether the district court to give some guidance and instruction there is now been the court did not have the benefit of now four circuit court opinions that have all rule that one be one point thousand and eighteen they refer the guideline refers to gives it a couple specific grounds that would constitute extraordinary and compelling not why and given that when you say continue so you're you're asking us to remain and do what we did in macgregor revanth for dismissed without prejudice and that's because you think the conditions have changed so you your  rather than rather than argue that there is some exception to the mandatory exhausting role that should apply here i think at least in our case it would make sense just to follow the macgregor approach and dismissed without prejudice allow him no he knew it in the district or on the st question where the district court denied the in determining whether a sentence reduction is warranted under all the circumstances we renewed our motion because there was significant changes since judge show denied  deaths as well as we presented a release plan where mr fuentes who had moved from her said california area which led to his trouble in the st place to texas or i mean that we just couldn't consider all or is it is it not interesting the the government argued it was jurisdictional but we've changed that position to say it's a claims processing rule and i think whatever the government has already we preserved it and what what what way when we talk about jurisdictional i get views because we use the phrase in so many ways if it's if it's mandatory it is if the law is that he has to appellate court other circuits have said no yet and mcgregor doesn't have to address it because the district court and one reason i would argue that it shouldn't be reminded consistent with mcgregor the district developments but i think in this case st you don't have to reach there because of the exhaustion issue but even if you did there's nothing in this opinion that suggests the problem that existed in brooker and some of the other cases that were addressed in other circuits and that is this court expressly recognizes authority to grant branches as motion for compassionate release just wasn't persuaded because he hasn't presented extraordinary compelling reasons even in his reply brief as a very general and  think that this case though it may not make a practical difference the court should follow macgregor approach because in both gregor as well as this case they just report  the compassionate release motion in mcgregor the court than because the exhausted rule is mandatory dismiss the petition and in our case  it i think because we're not we're accepting that ruling the court should also dismissed it without prejudice thank you thank you counsel think both counsel for the arguments in this case and the case is now submitted