7W Ccur-f of far W. Ekv^J-U\ ^-ff'rr/vei -W,
of Mo^-'cwvj -fr /wo d rfr^ ^ -f,'osjC (KrC^ ? oC feJrr4-,'0Ki€r /y
of (JfJ *T4-f ^ <*f £b~f)r'g}tWold?tsi^ 4^\*4^orVV, (»J 7-Q-^4' t7t0 1&'*V3 of •^Vu84^ <k\\ u^ckr- if ^j.cc. JSf5-Cc)Cl9CA)j'* 4-Kjl/ jpalTcy ^4-^4-€-/^eK/V
^urdeir»xer Tr ^ir^u
f-eiy^vJ^ OkJ \V* prev\VvS <iecT "
1^ <+tf4*r *• f,3d 4*h?, iU>( 11+V Qc. £©£]).
4-we, £Wv^isi4-K CCr Co> f!/ d-cc< ^*'fcr«vA iw 5>,xy'^ tv\7 \'c-4iT ooTA-V v 4-W j?_
"V^A-W C'rC^j^V/ 6sl,C<. ^'gJUsj t kJ ^vJ>J i -\-<t a ^ ^^O/v\^0i ^*7? f34
^|0-W v f - 3x? j cV\ C-e-j^CfCci 'Wvje- tslOfCOKi -fV\c^,A — •^•€,c4- l'^Kl
^ -W- vojWtsi 6 d-efe*Jcl*vNi7 f<Vs ^ ^ r^d^c^. ->efj4e^jc-e UNkkr threc-fly M'fV 4w diVfWcf Cco-fV."
(VN^ onn^o; 7-o ^ ^ff- LffT 3, £ 4- ^ JH C <cr+[^ po-r^y \r. y-KT-Kd
SGI 0-5-, ^GOj CWWO).
^v«s\£e. 4^- O-'f, "J>e-K)4-€>JxC6vJ^
4w fe^v^red f<*-rr <vr^>/^berj i of- u ^ofo^
4a^ Co^^' 0Ki was 4^ CotsK^ 44^4 o>Wy d^-fy oP pro^oi^MT^
folTcy '£-V-*v7c<v'^4' &°rsy 4w_ oic of 4xv«,
3Sf9-tc)fa)CA)Cr) ; w*r fv*. EW* j4Vn CCccvH'f

Whether the Eleventh Circuit's holding in Bryant that the policy statement in USSG §1B1.13 applies to all motions under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) conflicts with the Tenth Circuit's decision in Maumau and the Supreme Court's decision in Dillon v. United States, and whether the Eleventh Circuit's decision is a misinterpretation of Sections 603(b) and the First Step Act's modification to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)