1. Whether a district court may point to documents on the record that a defendant has complained of not having recieved as the only iustification for denying a Retroactive Amendment Reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2).

2. Whether a circuit court of appeals may affirm the denial of a motion under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) when said motion was denied based on information that has been withheld from the defendant alone.

3. Whether this Court s previous holdings prohibiting sentencing based on secret information in capital cases should be applied toward non-capital sentencing proceedings.

4. Whether it violates either Due Process protections or Equal Treatment protections under the 5th Amendment to fail in calculating A previous retroactive Guideline Amendment's change to a defendant's guideline range when including such would result in the current sentence being outside of the applicable guideline range and the district court had previously denied the prior retroactive amendment application based solely on the fact that it had granted a downward departure at original sentencing to account for the previous retroactive guideline prior to its passage, and a failure to include such means that effectively all future retroactive amendments to the guidelines make the defendant unable to avail himsfelf of their benefit due solely to the previous downward departure at sentencing creating a potential situation that leaves the defendant with a higher sentence than he would receive at the time of the retroactive amendment and same a disparate sentence with all others who qualify and are similarly situated absent the original retroacitve amendment's denial.

Whether a district court may deny a Retroactive Amendment Reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) based solely on documents on the record that the defendant has not received, and whether such denial violates due process or equal protection when it prevents the defendant from benefiting from guideline amendments