Did Congress delegate complete authority to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to define extraordinary-and-compelling-reasons for sentence-reduction

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did Congress, in 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), delegate complete authority to the U.S. Sentencing Commission to “define” an exclusive list of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as the Eleventh Circuit has held, or is that interpretation of § 994(t) not only counter-textual for the reasons identified by the Tenth Circuit, but unconstitutional under the non-delegation doctrine? 2. Given the Court’s holding in Concepcion that when a district court exercises its discretion under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act the record must demonstrate that the court at least “considered” a defendant’s arguments based on unrelated, nonretroactive changes in sentencing law, does a district court abuse its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) by exercising its “discretion” to deny compassionate release, if the record does not confirm that the court considered a defendant’s arguments under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) based upon intervening changes in sentencing law that that would result in a reduced Guideline range and lesser sentence today? i INTERESTED PARTIES There are no