failed to meet his burden of demonstrating Extraordinary and Compelling reasons that warrant a sentence reduction?

Whether Certiorari should be granted to assess where in light of 18+ years of incarceration with no actions committed by the Appellant of further criminal activity with no pattern of repeated criminal activity to the charges in the instant case supports a denial of Compassionate Release when Appellant's correctional, educational, therapeutic, religious/spiritual and program history while incarcerated far supports his post-offense rehabilitation and whether his contributions to others supplements his entitlement to a reduction in sentence.

I. Whether Certiorari should be granted to assess whether using a criminal history of 18+ years to deny the Appellant is unreasonable especially when the last 18+ years have been full of meritorious reasons to grant a sentence reduction and is more consistent with fairness than to deny the Appellant a reduction in sentence on the basis of a stale charge, especially in light of Judge Reidinger's decisions in United States v. Bruce Lee Richardson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208899 (October 29, 2021) and United States v. Michael Balais, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198980 (October 26, 2021) and whether Equal Protection of Law principles apply and have been violated.

IV. Whether Certiorari should be granted to assess whether Equal Protection of Law principles were violated when other Defendants in like circumstances in the same District Court are released from prison and whether there is an appropriate governmental interest suitably favoring differential treatment.

V. Whether Certiorari should be granted in light of looking at the Appellant in relationship to Pepper, Kuhn, Rivera Doctrine, etc. Sentencing pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

VI. Whether Certiorari should be granted when the government conceded the Appellant's argument by failing to serve him their response to his motion for a reduction in the lower court by failing to plead, thereby failing to preserve their standing issue by waiving or abandoning it pursuant to Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 458 n.13, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004) as cited in United States v. Noble, 762 F.3d 509 (Aug. 8, 2014) quoting United States v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236, 240 n.3 (6th Cir. 2004)

Whether the district and appellate court erred in denying the appellant's motion for a sentence reduction