ORDER

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

The court will not sign the form AO 247 (Rev. 11/11) presented to it in this case because the boiler-plate language therein to the effect that the court took into account the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. As explained in this court's order of April 21, 2015 (Docket 37), the court did not get to the point of considering the §3553(a) factors because it concluded that a reduction of defendant's sentence would not be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission" —namely, U.S.S.G. §1B1.10. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010).

The AO 247 form was apparently developed to assist the Sentencing Commission in collecting and reporting data regarding the courts' decisions to apply Amendment 782 retroactively. In this court's opinion, it would be misleading to the Sentencing Commission's mission to submit a form stating the court had considered the § 3553(a) factors when in fact, pursuant to the Commission's applicable policy statement and binding Supreme Court precedent, the court had done just the opposite. In short, as is true with so many forms judges are called upon to sign, one size does not fit all. Instead, this court's Order filed April 21, 2015 should serve to more accurately inform the Sentencing Commission and the Bureau of Prisons of the reasons for the denial of defendant's motion.

Nevertheless, because defense counsel represents that he did not file notice of appeal because he was waiting for the court to sign a Form 247, the court will extend the time for filing notice of appeal from the Order denying his motion. Therefore, defendant's request to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 4(b)(4), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the time for filing a notice of appeal from this Court's order of April 21, 2015, is extended to May 15, 2015.