Whether the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Bryant that the policy statement in USSG §1B1.13 applies to all motions under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) conflicts with the Tenth Circuit's decision in Maumau and the Supreme Court's decision in Dillon v. United States, and whether the Eleventh Circuit's decision is a misinterpretation of Sections 603(b) and the First Step Act's modification to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED The U-9. Cac} of Appeals for tre Eleretth recom Gffiroed dre district Convis d2nic\ of feltdrnter’s Recoisrder ations oF his Motion fr Modiftegtion of ans Twfosey Term of Lnfricniment, holdtnsg Laat "dhe policy Sintemend Sat fora WW Sactiomd JBV-13 oF We Seibescinsg Gordelues is Gfple cable fo all motiass onder 1F UO. C. SSEACC)(1)(A),” CelyiNJ On US frevins deciScams ins United Stakes Vv. Bryanhy) 446 F.3d 1943, Ea ( Mth Cr. Qa). Bok tre Elewensty Corcults decisom tn Bryad Conflccts Win the Tend, Cicreuids deccsgim iW ONibed Slibes v. Méiomavr, 442 €-3d $2 (io Cit. 30 9), walk cn Cejected dye Noto drat Sections ils is “bind~ ing of We districk Cart chen & deferidanh Fikes 4 motiznd do Cedyce Seuferice Unde Section 35¢O(0O(D)(A) drrectly WK dnc dosdarct Cort 3 eat Maumav, oA UF Ay. CELLS, at * 34 Coming Dorsey v. United Shares, SG1 V-5, #60) PG (2019). Since Ye 0-9. Senlencing Commission) Cossisted of oly two of the cequired far members & a FLOM do amend the Gurdelines, aud dine Commission WAS walle fo Comply With 1S statotry duty of Promulgating cx fost Frese Step Ret folvey Statement $eGacdisg dre se of We Sesterice ceducttos provigimss & Section 3SEPLAICHCAICT), Was tre Eleventn Circuit's holding ou Bryant 4 misinteeretetion # Sectans GO3(b) & We Frrst Step Rety heck modified 16 UFC. 3S¢2Ce)(1) @ 3