Whether the district court is obligated to consider a defendant's non-frivolous arguments when exercising its discretion to grant or deny relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

No question identified. : on enna , Ey the conte ntof 2 motion for a capucdons | in sentence pursuant to 18 USC g 35826) GA) is the district court obligated to | con sipar a defendants Non=frivolous ee ee | acguments,is exercising Its discretion _ at valet sit of ih So to grant calif, int Light o this Courds ling in Concepeion v.llniten States, Z an ; _ : _ Listoppasues. lo All_pacties appeac int the.caption of the cas@onHie ae Cover page, Z : _ C] Ail _pactus do act appear in dhe oaption of the.cose ou _ “| the cover p age. Alistef all paces +e the proceeping in en the couct wibese. judgment is the subject ofthis __|__-patition is as follows: WA ——_ ic Uviteo States " Crawley, No, 1:s0-¢r-0006,-US. Disteiot | Court foc the Eastecn District of Teanescea-at Chattaneaga 9 co Tdgment entecto Apcil, 62022. wialefgsssiCOO()) | + Usiteo States v, Conley, No22-6320, US, Court of ppeals | Fudgmant entecto Nov. 29,2022 (Dsivial_of Appeal); = , ; Suda mont entuceo Feb 15,2003 (Denial ef Tinwely Petition; | for cebuacinug en bawe) ae te ToAPPENDIcgS | hepenpix a= Unidos States Cowct of Apoeals forthe oe Sth Circe Danial of Appeal, pgs. 1-41; A _|aprenioix @ ~ unite Stotes District Court for the Easteen istrict of Tennessee at Chattanvaga, (AP pe mix C= Uniteo States Couch of Appeals foc Hoe Sixth __ _ _ Ciccutt, Denial of Petition for Rehearing em base, a es ei umn leo States v Sesckues, 50EW.Ub6 (B0Gr.g02e) oo (nite States y. MOY 50 F4th 1046 Colh Gn 2002) 2, —— uitea Sththe v. Webuort 238 F Supe. 3d 36 (Ed Tvwe Prfory) 15 berven v Upto States 1998. Gf 161, 210l Edad és (en) 18,20 ; ; ___. Deane v. Uniteo Stabs 131S.C4 190,191 bad V0 (eI) 17 nla States 0 Ruffin 918 Fad toe (6M bin 2020) MB : . Resa lesMireles v. Unuiteo Sfates, 138 £. CL 1699, 201 ee _. |bbdiad ane Cog) Me | Dorsey v, Uniteo 5 fates, 567 Uf, 260 (2012) Mo __.. \Dawvile Oishone flear., Biel. Boshear yi SCA Sn a Tipe or purtonnes cre _ _ oe eases age nue sl Uuiteo States uM Murray, 665 Fd 369 (ch ie sou) Passig _ ; Concepeiun velit Steths, 142. 8.4 236,213 Lad. 2d 13.2203) Pisin ; oo _Mhuteastetecy Chan, Wath wore l@i Gir doen) _UnheaStates y Meafiaba, 26 64M atin oy) oe itto S¢atas y.fMauttleu, 293 Fad 021 (oth Git, a anne dita Stetis Lh Coy, eee 2h tir oo) _WuttoSthtes v, Back fro, Ne. 22-1001 00x US hyp leis _ hihen Sts Bledhoe,, No. 2-2002, 2002 US fap LEXIS i . _ opinions Below hOoustiruTioNAt A 0 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVUVED 2 po STATE MENTO THE CASE BB / __ | donecusie | Perea 25-26 _ | Phooe oe seaiee at a _: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | Retin on war or ceRrion AR) a |_ Petitioner ces pactfully scays Hu a'weit of cechoraci issue to view | we judge below, — ___| “the opinions of the Unctzo States court of appeals at Appewix Ato a the pefiowis unpublisheo; — at he opinion of the Unicteo States distnet court appears at Appooix ___ Crawley ,_ lo. [l0~cr-5 , 2022. U.S. Dist, LExIS 73722 (Ede = a! — ~ i “the date “ow which +h 2 Uviten Sates (Court of Hopeals decioae ge inn case was November 29,20e— , ae The date om whick the (nites States Court of Appeals sanieo Te pethanace Hnaly pein Ge Rebering as ru WOE — Febt6.2022 2 Al espy of the order denying caheowing es _isppeors ot