only to clarity, rather than effect substantive changes.” United States v. Sanchez-Villarreal, 857 F.3d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). A retroactive amendment is "not controlling”; it is instead "evidence of the Sentencing Commission’s intent behind the Guideline at issue." Id. at 719-20 (alterations and quotation marks omitted). Determining whether a Guidelines amendment is clarifying (retroactive) or substantive (not retroactive) implicates several, non-determinative factors— none of which Barton briefed. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Huff, 370 F.3d 454, 465-67 (5th Cir. 2004). 7 . The circuit courts that have addressed Amendment 801’s retroactivity have arrived at different answers. Compare United States v. Roberty, 689 Fed.Appx. 492, 493 (9th Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Aman, 697 Fed.Appx.
holding that the act is retroactive holding that the act is not retroactive recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding retroactive application holding in view of the governments concession that amendment 801 is retroactive