Whether the first step act sentencing reform wreak havoc with the United States v. Booker (2005) and Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) precedents

No question identified. : AY WORETRER THE ESRST STEP PCT ceeereN (s) PRESENTED — NON CAD CAD CS SER TTENCNIG REFORM WREAK ES PY LENS WTR UNETED DGD AND E> OF See at Seo Tee PET BEA AO (ZOOS) AND CPORMOPS ROSEDOY, OLDER SEO US, SES\rX se xo) O2 Lowe. COURTS PRDING 5 >) Bom SRERENS OF THESE ISSUES 74 SEN OF-ANG AND NOT ADDRESSING DD WRETRER THRE GOVERNMENT WAS PRECLUDED FLOM USING AA OE THE RETETIONERS RRS OR COONESTIONS Ty AEQUET OF TW FIRST STEP ASTHOLD AGT AND (se) of ane SSESEN TENcne ZECORM WAS SS SN INS WE UNITED STprIES Vi RODRE = QUEZA S53 WS BUA PET BSI 40 (2.008) PND CAPASUELPosEnde WN WOlWER SOO Vi SOB, Rey SAD ANZ (acre) ZAPD Ae S$ Oy WRETREL TRE PETIVIONEER IS ASTUAL SNNOCENT of counts \ AWD ~-2 Clsery VR UnsaGr § 422.) AND VB WSG SABIE AND PLL oF THE FEDERAL EURANGEMENTS UNDER THE UNITED STRESS SO TEN SING GULDELINES TRE PRESENT ENCE SNNESTE SATION REPORT SENB\AL ARMED CAREER CRIMINAL AND VB USS INC Se SE aR Pee A et te. oF WE PETIT TONERS Pest ~ at THE GOVERN CLUDED FROM USING wr MENT WAS PRE dy WHETHER RETETIONERS COURT MRROSNTED COUNSEL WARD Px COPTLTSy OF SAY TEREST WEA MAS SAENZ Pend WAS TRER VS couNSsEL VolTED Ws GH PIMENID MENT RSOWT TO AWE CLPFELAING ASSIS TAN CE OT COUNSEL DUS “To WEES Rewsons 34