We believe the Commission should limit retroactive application to offenders in Criminal History Categories I and II who did not receive: (1) a mandatory minimum sentence for a firearms offense pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924©; (2) an enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon pursuant to §2D1.1(b)(1); (3) an enhancement for using, threatening, or directing the use of violence pursuant to §2D1.1(b)(2); (4) an enhancement for playing an aggravating role in the offense pursuant to §3B1.1; or (5) an enhancement for obstruction of justice or attempted obstruction of justice pursuant to §3C1.1.

There is no good reason to limit the retroactivity to those in Criminal History Categories I and II. It is also inconsistent with the language of the reduction, which contains no such restriction for those being sentenced after November 1.

The enhancements for supervisory role, obstruction and possession of a weapon are often arbitrarily meted out and inconsistently applied, depending on the District, and the position of the U.S. Attorney's office in that district, which is often determined by whether or not the defendant cooperated. There are defendants who sold or supplied multi-kilo quantities of drugs who do not get supervisory enhancements and others who supplied or sold a few ounces who do. Some defendants who have a gun in the bedroom closet where drugs are found (or glove box of their vehicle when drugs are found in the car) get the gun enhancement and others don't. Some defendants who testify at trial and wer