Did the district court err when it imposed an extratextual limitation on its statutory authority to determine what amounts to an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for a sentence reduction by concluding that a sentencing error and disparity cannot be the basis for a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A)?

Whether a sentencing error and resulting disparity can constitute an 'extraordinary and compelling reason' for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)