Whether the District Court committed substantive error in sentencing

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED |. Whether the District Court Committed substantive error when failed to impose a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the statutory directive set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). \l. Whether there is frivolous issue with regard to Mr. Hernandez sentence. A review the district court's decision whether to reduce a sentence under §3582(c)(2). Il. The disparities of sentence between Mr. Hernandez and his Co-defendants \V. The District Court abused its discretion in reducing Appellant's sentence to 292 months rather than 188 months pursuant to motion for Reduction of Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) where: (A) Appellant is qualified for such a reduction pursuant to Amendment 782788; (B) the District Court violated the provision of § 3553{a) by imposing a sentence longer than necessary and creating unwarranted sentence disparities among the defendants with similar record who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and _ (C) Appellant's sentence of 292 months is both procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable. (in alternative the court should had reduced the sentence a list to 188 months regarding the mandatory minimum) ii PARTIES Lino Hernandez, is the Petitioner; he was the defendant-appellant below. The United States of America is the Respondent; it was the plaintiff-Appellee below. iii