YES, SENATOR, IT IS AND I WILL EXPLAIN HOW. MR. YOUNG, AS YOU SAY, WAS FACING ORIGINALLY A SENTENCE OF 20 YEARS IN, WHICH I IMPOSED. I TRIED, MR. YOUNG, WHO WENT TO TRIAL, PRIMARILY BECAUSE HE WAS FACING SUCH A LONG PENALTY. I LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. HE WAS ABSOLUTELY THE KINGPIN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE WAY THAT OUR LAWS WORK, THE 20 YEAR SENTENCE HE RECEIVED FOR THE AMOUNT OF HEROIN THAT HE HAD WAS INCREASED BASED ON A SENTENCE HE RECEIVED 10 OR 15 YEARS BEFORE. HE HAD NO CRIMINAL HISTORY BETWEEN THE OLD, OLD SENTENCE, I CAN'T MEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND I'M SURE PEOPLE WILL LOOK IT UP, BUT 10 OR 15 YEARS BEFORE, HE HAD SOME MINOR SENTENCE. THEN HE HAD A SERIOUS, TERRIBLE SENTENCE. THE GOVERNMENT FILES WHAT IS CALLED AN 851, WHICH IS AN ENHANCEMENT BASED ON HIS REALLY, REALLY OLD COME A PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY. I FOLLOWED THE LAW, WHICH SAID HE HAD TO GO TO JAIL FOR 20 YEARS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE LIKE 10 YEARS IF THE GOVERNMENT HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS VERY OLD CRIMINAL HISTORY, BUT I SAID FINE, THIS IS THE LAW, I'M FOLLOWING IT, YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL FOR 20 YEARS. IN THE INTERIM, COVID HAPPENS. WE GET LOTS OF COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTIONS AND THERE IS A STATUTE CONGRESS HAS ENACTED WHICH ALLOWS DEFENDANTS TO SEEK COMPASSIONATE RELEASE, TO SEEK REDUCTION OF THEIR SENTENCE, NOT JUST RELEASE, REDUCTION, RELEASE , SOME ADJUSTMENT TO THEIR PENALTY UNDER THE LAW IF THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING REASONS TO DO SO. THAT IS THE QUOTE FROM THE STATUE -- EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING REASONS. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING MORE NARROW THAN THAT, THOUGH YOU DO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES RELATED TO COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. ALL OF WHICH I DID RELATED TO HIS MOTION AND HE ARGUED SEVERAL THINGS. HE ARGUED HIS SMOKING, HIS ASTHMA, THESE WERE REASONS, HE SAID FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND I DISAGREED. BUT I DID FIND EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING IS THE FACT THAT BETWEEN THE 20 YEAR SENTENCE I GAVE HIM ORIGINALLY AND THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION HE FILED, CONGRESS CHANGED THE LAW. CONGRESS DECIDED THE OLD PENALTY, THE OLD CRIME WAS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR THE INCREASE , SO THAT A PERSON WHO WAS CONVICTED AT THE TIME OF HIS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT MR. YOUNG HAD DONE WOULD NOT GET A 20 YEAR SENTENCE. THAT WOULD NOT BE LAWFUL FOR A PERSON AT THAT MOMENT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS CONGRESS SAYS TO THE JUDGES IS CARE ABOUT UNWARRANTED SENTENCES DISPARITIES. CARE ABOUT THE FACT PERSON YOU ARE SENTENCING IS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN SOMEONE ELSE WHO COMMITTED EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME. AND I UNDERSTAND IT WAS NOT RETROACTIVE IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYBODY ABSENCE THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR RESENTENCING, BUT HERE I HAVE A DEFENDANT BEFORE ME AND ALL OF THE FACTORS CONGRESS HAS ASKED ME TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, AND A COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT THERE WERE EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT IS A CHANGE IN THE LAW THAT WOULD CREATE UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITIES IF I DID NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF IT. SO WHAT I DETERMINED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IS I WOULD RE-SENTENCE MR. YOUNG TO THE PENALTY CONGRESS HAD DECIDED WAS THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY FOR THE CONDUCT HE COMMITTED AS OF THE TIME OF THIS MOTION. 