Whether the 'and' in 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) means 'and' consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word, so that the person remains eligible unless the person meets (A), (B), and (C), or is it a rare occasion where 'and' can transform into 'or'

QUESTION PRESENTED When the terms of a statute are unambiguous, “it’s no contest” what a court should do—apply the law as written. Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 8. Ct. 1731, 1737 (2020). In drafting 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1), which allows a court to sentence below a mandatory minimum, Congress used the word “and” to separate three different criteria needed to disqualify a person from eligibility. The criteria are if the person “does not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points ... ; (B) a prior 3-point offense, ... ; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, .” 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) (emphasis added). The question presented is whether the “and” in 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) means “and” consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word, so that the person remains eligible unless the person meets (A), (B), and (C), as the Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have concluded, or is it a rare occasion where “and” can transform into “or,” as the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits surmised.