Whether the District Court established an improperly high standard for demonstrating 'serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process' by requiring more than documented chronic conditions and expert medical recommendation, and does this conflict with the First Step Act's intent to expand compassionate release?

Whether the District Court establish an improperly high standard for demonstrating "serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process" by requiring more than documented chronic conditions and expert medical recommendation, and does this conflict with the First Step Act’s intent to expand compassionate release?I. II. Whether placing a Care Level 4 inmate in a Care Level 1 facility that lacks adequate medical resources constitute "deliberate indifference" to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when multiple documented health conditions remain untreated? III. Whether a district court's dismissal of a BOP regional doctor's explicit compassionate release recommendation for a 73-year-old inmate with multiple documented untreated conditions requires this Court's review when: (1) the court imposed extra-statutory requirements by requiring the doctor to demonstrate legal expertise, when 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and USSG § 1B1.13 do not mandate such expertise from medical professionals, and (2) the court's conclusoryl8 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis failed to adequately address the presumption of extraordinary and compelling reasons created by advanced age, systematic denial of specialist care, and i | P a g e deteriorating health conditions? IV. Whether the district court's reliance on a single clinical notation that the inmate was "alert, oriented and in no distress" override substantial evidence of multiple chronic medical conditions, (in light of USSG § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C)), constitute an abuse of discretion in compassionate release determinations? ii | P a g e