Whether the Di strict Court erred when i t (1) fel t constrai ned to i mpose the
mandatory mi nimum sentence, 120 months of i mpri sonment; (2) di d not appl y the
"Safety Val ve," 18 U .S.C. § 3553(f); and (3) di d not i mpose a presumpti vely
reasonabl e sentence wi thin the gui deline range of i mpri sonment cal culated by
Nolan Washi ngton's Presentence Investi gation Report ("PSR"). The Di strict Court
shoul d have read the "and" i n the "Safety Val ve," speci fically 18 U .S.C. § 3553(f)(1),
in the conjuncti ve and shoul d have cal culated Mr. Washi ngton's gui deline range of
impri sonment as determi ned by hi s PSR, 87-108 months of i mpri sonment.

Did the Fi fth Ci rcuit err when i t read the "and" i n § 3553(f)(1) i n the
disjuncti ve and/or when i t concl uded that cri minal defendants are 'i neligible for
safety val ve rel ief under § 3553(f)(1) i f they run afoul of any one of its requi rements.'
Palomares , 52 F.4th at 647 (emphasi s added).

Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in its interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)