GOOD. FOR THE BENEFIT OF MY COLLEAGUES, LAMY COVER THE BASICS OF THIS CASE. YOU SENTENCED HIM IN 2018. HE WAS A CAREER CRIMINAL WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF TRAFFICKING COCAINE. HE WAS RUNNING A DRUG BUSINESS IN HIS HOUSE WHERE HIS CHILDREN LIVED AND WAS FOUND WITH TWO ONE KILOGRAM BRICKS OF HEROIN WORTH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALONG WITH A GUN, AMMUNITION, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN CASH AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND PACKAGE EQUIPMENT FOR RETAIL SALE. THE DRUG LAB CONFIRMED THERE WAS FENTANYL IN THE HEROIN. IN ONE OF THE TWO BRICKS, THERE WAS ACTUALLY MORE FENTANYL THAN THERE WAS HEROIN. AT THE D.C. JAIL AWAITING TRIAL, HE BRAGGED ABOUT HIS ARREST AND HOW HE WAS A KINGPIN. THOSE ARE HIS WORDS, NOT MINE. KINGPIN. HE WAS EVEN RECORDED CALLING HIS WIFE AND BROTHER TO GIVE HIM INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING DRUG MONEY ON PEOPLE FOR THEM. THE PROSECUTORS FILED A NOTE OF HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY, MEANING HE FACED A MANDATORY MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS. YOU DID NOT SEEM TO LIKE THAT. IN FACT, AT HIS SENTENCING, YOU SAID -- THIS IS A QUOTE, THAT YOU SHARED HIS FRUSTRATION THAT YOU COULD NOT GIVE HIM A LIGHTER SENTENCE. I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THIS IN THE TRANSCRIPT. I WAS ALSO SHOCKED THAT YOU APOLOGIZED TO THIS DRUG KINGPIN FOR HAVING TO FOLLOW THE LAW. YOU LITERALLY SAID YOU DIDN'T THINK 20 YEARS WAS FAIR. AND FOR THIS, I'M SORRY. MOSTLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN SECOND CHANCES. YOU APOLOGIZED TO THIS CAREER CRIMINAL, A DRUG KINGPIN, IN HIS OWN WORDS, NOT SOME LOW-LEVEL FIRST-TIME OFFENDER THAT MADE A BAD CHOICE. THAT WAS IN 2018. BUT IN 2020, YOU GOT A SECOND CHANCE. AFTER HIS SENTENCE, CONGRESS PASSED SOMETHING CALLED THE FIRST STEP ACT WHICH REDUCED SENTENCES FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS WITH LENGTHY RECORDS. DURING THE DRUG PANDEMIC, LOTS OF CRIMINALS TRIED TO TWIST THE PROVISION WHICH WAS INTENDED FOR TERMINALLY ILL, ELDERLY INMATES TO GET EARLY RELEASE AND BLAME IT ON COVID. YOU HAD NONE OF THAT, AND THAT'S GOOD. YOU RIGHTLY SAID AT HIS RESENTENCING HEARING, COVID-19 IS NOT ONLY PRESENT IN PRISONS AND YOU SAID YOUNG'S PAST AS A SMOKER AND HIS CLAIM OF VARIOUS OTHER HEALTH ISSUES DID NOT ENTITLE HIM TO EARLY RELEASE. IF YOU STOP THERE, I WOULD'VE THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE AND HOW YOU FOLLOWED THE LAW AND MADE A WILL REGION DECISION. UNFORTUNATELY, HE DID NOT STOP THERE. YOU SAID "CONGRESS IT NOT MAKE THEIR CHANGES UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT RETROACTIVE. BUT IF THEY HAD, YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A REDUCED SENTENCE. THEN YOU SAID NO MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS -- AND THIS IS A QUOTE -- THE COURT DEALS AS THOUGH IN THIS MOMENT, PER HIS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION, THE COURT EVALUATES THE SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT, SO IT IS ALMOST AS IF I AM SENTENCING HIM TODAY, AND IF I WERE TO DO SO, HE WOULD FACE A SENTENCE THAT WOULD BE WELL BELOW THE 240 MONTHS MR. YOUNG RECEIVED, SO FOR THAT REASON, I WILL GRANT MR. YOUNG'S MOTION." BEFORE YOU GRANTED THIS FENTANYL KINGPINS MOTION, DID YOU CONTACT ANY OF THE VICTIMS OF THIS CASE? JUDGE JACKSON: 