Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404

Section 404(a) excludes offenses committed on or after August 3, 2010, from its definition of a covered offense.

United States v. Valdez · filed 2021-02-05(a)

Because Valdez’s offense was not committed before August 3, 2010, it was not a covered offense for purposes of the Fair Sentencing Act, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

Section 404(b) does not authorize a sentence reduction for drug-related murder under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) because the Fair Sentencing Act did not modify that offense’s statutory penalties.

United States v. Gilliam · filed 2021-05-07(b)

In sum, we hold that drug-related murder, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A), is not a “covered offense” under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not require a court to explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors when deciding a sentence reduction motion.

United States v. Walker · filed 2021-03-22

Contrary to Walker’s assertion, the court “was not required to provide reasons or explain its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors” in considering his motion for a reduced sentence.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction for an eligible defendant whose original sentence was previously commuted by the President.

United States v. Mitchell · filed 2019-06-27(b)

Because President Obama’s executive grant of clemency for Mr. Mitchell did not impose a new sentence, but only reduced the original one, the Court therefore finds that Mr. Mitchell is eligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 permits a court to consider a sentence reduction for a covered offense while the defendant is imprisoned for revocation of supervised release.

United States v. Venable · filed 2019-11-20(a)

And given that Venable’s revocation sentence is part of the penalty for his initial offense, he is still serving his sentence for a “covered offense” for purposes of the First Step Act. Thus, the district court had the authority to consider his motion for a sentence reduction, just as if he were still serving the original custodial sentence.

Section 404(a) treats a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release as a sentence for the original covered offense when determining eligibility for a reduction.

United States v. Woods · filed 2020-02-04(a)

Given that Woods’s current 37-month sentence relates to his original offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)—a First Step Act “covered offense”—Woods is eligible for resentencing (although not necessarily entitled to resentencing).

Section 404 permits consideration of a sentence reduction when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for the violation for which the defendant was sentenced, subject to Section 404(c)’s limits.

United States v. Holloway · filed 2020-04-24

Where a defendant is not otherwise ineligible for First Step Act relief according to the limitations set forth in Section 404(c) of that Act, the defendant’s eligibility depends only on whether the statutory penalties for the violation for which the defendant was sentenced were modified by Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404 does not permit a reduction of a fully served sentence for a covered offense to shorten a separate sentence imposed in another criminal case.

United States v. James Willie Askew, III · filed 2020-08-07

The mere fact that at one point in the past a defendant was sentenced for a “covered offense” under ... the First Step Act does not mean that he can employ the First Step Act to reduce the wholly separate prison term he is currently serving for an unrelated crime in a different case.

Section 404(b) does not authorize reducing a covered-offense prison sentence after it has been fully served.

Martin v. United States · filed 2020-09-03(b)

The First Step Act does not authorize district courts to reduce sentences for covered offenses where those sentences have been fully served.

Section 404 allows a sentence reduction for a covered offense committed before August 3, 2010.

United States v. Dontour Drakes · filed 2020-10-14(a)

... Drakes’s offense was not committed before August 3, 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act already applied to him and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

Section 404(a) makes a defendant eligible to seek a sentence reduction for a pre August 3, 2010 federal offense whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act; an unchanged Guidelines range does not defeat eligibility.

United States v. McKinney · filed 2021-05-28(a)

Whether Mr. McKinney’s Guidelines range would be reduced through application of the Fair Sentencing Act—as the First Step Act prescribed—simply was not relevant, as a matter of law, to a determination regarding his eligibility for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404 does not permit a sentence reduction when the Fair Sentencing Act would have left the defendant’s mandatory sentence unchanged.

United States v. Taylor · filed 2021-11-16

Although Taylor was sentenced for a covered offense under § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), he is not eligible for a reduction because his sentence would have necessarily been the same even under the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(b) requires a motion for a First Step Act sentence reduction to be filed in the court that imposed the sentence.

Gallardo v. Rios · filed 2019-07-17(b)

A motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act must be filed with the “court that imposed [the] sentence,” not in the district of incarceration.

Section 404 allows defendants who committed covered offenses before August 3, 2010, to seek the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced penalties through a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B).

Cannon v. United States · filed 2019-12-11

Section 404 of the First Step Act authorizes application of reduced statutory penalties of the Fair Sentencing Act, Pub. L. No. 111-120, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), to defendants who committed a “covered offense” before August 3, 2010. As such, a motion to reduce sentence under the First Step Act should be brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), which provides that a court “may modify a term of imprisonment to the extent . . . expressly permitted by statute.”

Section 404(b) gives the court that imposed the sentence authority to reduce it for a covered offense.

Patton v. Saad · filed 2020-03-23(b)

Petitioner was not sentenced in this Court; therefore, to the extent that Petitioner is requesting relief under the First Step Act, this Court has no authority to grant it.

Section 404 does not plainly require a district court to hold a hearing before reducing a sentence.

United States v. Adrian Cooper, Sr. · filed 2020-04-30

We rarely find plain error on matters of first impression, however, see United States v. Ramirez, 783 F.3d 687, 695 (7th Cir. 2015), and nothing in § 404 plainly requires the district court to hold any sort of hearing at all.

Section 404(b) authorizes the court that imposed the sentence to reduce it for a covered offense.

Delapuenta v. United States · filed 2020-05-06(b)

Assuming for purposes of ... argument only that the First Step Act applies in de la Puenta’s case, the court that imposed his judgment is the Northern District of Georgia, not the Western District of Virginia. Accordingly, the First Step Act provides this Court with no jurisdiction over de la Puenta's claim.

Section 404 does not require a hearing on a motion for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Caffey · filed 2020-06-05

Caffey first argues the district court erred in denying his motion without conducting a hearing that Section 404 of the First Step Act requires. This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 843 (8th Cir. 2019), where we held that “Section 404 of the First Step Act does not require a hearing.”

Section 404 does not require a hearing on a motion to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Mannie · filed 2020-08-18

The 2018 FSA simply does not require a hearing.

Section 404(b) allows a transferee court to consider a sentence reduction after the sentencing court transfers jurisdiction over a person on supervised release.

United States v. El Herman · filed 2020-08-20(b)

A transferee court likewise may exercise power that the First Step Act grants to a court that imposed sentence, because that power is subject to transfer under § 3605.

A Section 404 sentence modification is too far removed from the original sentencing to be an ancillary proceeding that carries a statutory right to counsel.

United States v. Meeks · filed 2020-08-21(b)

Finally, a § 404 sentencing modification is too far removed from the initial proceeding to be an ancillary matter.

Section 404(c)’s complete-review language restricts successive motions but does not prescribe how a court must review an initial motion.

United States v. Hoskins · filed 2020-09-04(c)

Section 404(c) precludes a successive First Step Act motion if a previous motion was “denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits.” This provision says nothing about what constitutes a “complete review” of an initial First Step Act motion.

Section 404 requires a district court to explain its decision on a sentence reduction motion when the defendant presents new evidence of rehabilitation after sentencing.

United States v. McDonald · filed 2021-01-22(b)

Under Martin, that kind of post-sentencing mitigating evidence is enough to require a district court to provide an explanation on the record of its reasons for deciding a sentencing reduction motion.

Section 404 permits a court deciding a sentence reduction to consider updated statutory penalties, current Guidelines, and post-sentencing conduct.

United States v. Terraun Price · filed 2021-02-05

When considering ... sentence reductions under the First Step Act, district courts may consider “updated statutory benchmarks, current Guidelines, and post-sentencing conduct,” all of which may produce a reassessment of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Hudson, 967 F.3d 605, 613 (7th Cir. 2020). Moreover, a court cannot deny a motion under the First Step Act by simply citing its reasoning from the original sentencing. United States v. Corner, 967 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2020). But the court adhered to these norms and did not just repeat itself from the original sentencing.

Section 404(c) requires a district court to consider the arguments in a motion for a reduced sentence and have a reasoned basis for its decision.

United States v. Davis · filed 2021-01-27(c)

To conduct a “complete review” under Section 404, a district court must consider the arguments presented in the defendant’s motion and have a reasoned basis for its decision. ... The record clearly establishes that the district court did so here.

Section 404(c)’s complete-review requirement is satisfied when the district court considers the parties’ arguments and gives a reasoned basis for its decision.

United States v. Carter · filed 2021-03-12(c)

Here, the district court gave a reasoned basis for denying a reduced term of imprisonment that focused on the § 3553(a) factors and the purpose of the First Step Act. Though Carter argues that the court erred in not giving sufficient weight to other factors, the assertion that he was denied the “complete review” Section 404(c) requires is without merit.

Section 404(c) requires a complete review of a sentence reduction motion on the merits, including consideration of the parties’ arguments and a reasoned basis for the decision.

United States v. Howard · filed 2021-03-10(c)

The statute provides for “a complete review of the motion on the merits,” Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(c), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, which means that the district court “considered petitioner’s arguments” and “had a reasoned basis for its decision.” Moore, 963 F.3d at 728 (cleaned up). ... Thus, while the district court offered a basis for its decision, it did not consider any arguments from either party.

Section 404(b) requires a defendant to properly move for relief to put eligibility before the court, though the court may act on its own motion.

United States v. Munnings · filed 2021-03-18(b)

We cannot consider Munnings’s eligibility under the First Step Act because Munnings never properly moved for First Step Act relief, nor can we construe the few passing references to the First Step Act made during the revocation hearing as sufficient to have placed the merits of Munnings’s First Step Act eligibility before the district court. See First Step Act § 404(b) (authorizing defendant to file a ... “motion” for relief).

Section 404 leaves the district court discretion to decide whether a hearing is needed on a motion to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Surine · filed 2021-03-24(b)

Rather, Judge Brann retained the discretion to determine whether a hearing was necessary or may have been helpful to him in ruling on Surine’s motion.

Section 404 requires a complete review of a sentence reduction motion, but the district court need not consider every § 3553(a) factor.

United States v. Cosey · filed 2021-04-30

“When reviewing a section 404 petition, a district court may, but need not, consider the section 3553 factors.” ... We are satisfied that the district court conducted a complete review of Cosey’s Section 404 motion.

Section 404 requires renewed consideration of the § 3553(a) factors when resentencing an eligible defendant.

United States v. Howard · filed 2021-04-29

Upon review, we find that the district court abused its discretion by not completing the “renewed consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors” required under the FSA.

Section 404(b) requires a court considering a sentence reduction to recalculate the Guidelines in light of intervening case law and reconsider the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Lancaster · filed 2021-05-07(b)

To determine the sentence that the court would have imposed under the Fair Sentencing Act, the court must engage in a brief analysis that involves the recalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines in light of “intervening case law,” see Chambers, 956 F.3d at 672; United States v. Collingon, No. 19-6721, __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 1608756, at *5 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021), and a brief reconsideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), see Chambers, 956 F.3d at 674; Collington, 2021 WL 1608756, at *5; see also United States v. White, 984 F.3d 76, 90 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“Every circuit court that has examined the issue has held that a district court may, or must, consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when passing on a motion for relief under section 404 of the First Step Act”).

Section 404 does not give defendants a categorical right to allocute before a court rules on a sentence reduction motion.

United States v. Lawrence · filed 2021-06-15(b)

Nothing in the text or structure of Section 404, however, categorically requires that district courts provide an opportunity for the defendant to allocute before ruling on such a motion.

Section 404 permits a defendant to seek a sentence reduction by motion, but does not plainly require a court to consider that relief on its own during a supervised release revocation proceeding.

United States v. Charles Baker, III · filed 2021-07-19

Section 404 of the First Step Act permits a defendant to file a motion to seek a two-point reduction. The district court’s statement that Baker’s putative First Step Act motion was a separate matter from his revocation proceeding was ... thus not plain error because there is nothing in the statute or binding case law that indicates it would be properly brought in such a proceeding, and certainly nothing indicating that the district court must sua sponte consider such relief in such a proceeding.

A district court denying a Section 404 motion must give reasons when its explanation is too unclear to permit meaningful appellate review.

United States v. Stewart · filed 2021-08-27

In 2020, Stewart filed a motion to reduce sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (First Step Act), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5221. ... Although district courts need not always explain why they have denied a motion, meaningful review is possible here only with a statement of reasons ... for the denial.

Section 404 does not require a district court to hold a hearing before denying a sentence reduction motion.

United States v. Phillips · filed 2022-05-11

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Phillips’s motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. For starters, our Court in Denson made it clear that a district court is not required to hold a hearing in these circumstances.

Section 404(b) requires a court to determine eligibility for a sentence reduction before deciding whether and how much to reduce the sentence.

United States v. Mingo · filed 2022-11-21(b)

A district court must proceed in two steps when resolving a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. “First, the court must determine whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction. Second, if the defendant is eligible, the court must determine whether, and to what extent, to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.”

Section 404(b) permits a court to use a pre-Apprendi judge-made drug-quantity finding that triggered the original statutory penalty when deciding eligibility for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Lee · filed 2023-02-27(b)

But if the de- fendant was sentenced before Apprendi, then the district court may consider a previous judge-made drug-quantity finding that was necessary to trigger the statutory penalty.

Section 404(c) excludes defendants whose sentences already reflected the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments from relief under Section 404.

Rosario-Rosado v. United States · filed 2023-03-27(c)

Accordingly, Petitioner is excluded from eligibility for the relief he now seeks by the plain language of Section 404(c) of the First Step Act, and thus his claim fails.

Section 404(b) authorizes a sentence reduction only if the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments would have benefited the movant.

United States v. Williams · filed 2024-07-03(b)

Instead, “the fact that any sentence reduction must be made ‘as if’ the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time of the . . . offense means that no relief is available under [section 404(b)]” if the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments would not have benefited the movant. ... In short, because the First Step Act did not authorize reducing Williams’s life sentences on counts one and five, the district court’s order denying his section 404(b) motion is AFFIRMED.

Section 404 requires a request for resentencing to be brought before the court that imposed the sentence.

Cole v. Warden of FPC-Lewisburg · filed 2023-02-09

The Eastern District’s apparently erroneous conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding, the plain language of the FSA requires requests for resentencing to be brought before the sentencing court.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction motion when the sentence was previously imposed in conformity with the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments, including through sentencing guidelines that incorporated those amendments.

United States v. Holmes · filed 2019-08-17(c)

Since the defendant was resentenced under the 2011 GUIDELINES MANUAL in effect on May 12, 2011, which had incorporated into the Guidelines the emergency conforming amendments to implement FSA’s revised statutory penalties, he was resentenced “in accordance with”—that is, in conformity with—the “amendments made by” FSA’s sections 2 and 3.

Section 404(c) bars a repeat sentence reduction motion when an earlier motion under the section was denied after a complete review on the merits.

United States v. Bryant · filed 2019-09-13(c)

Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction under § 404(c) to consider the instant motion.

Section 404(c) bars a court from considering a sentence reduction motion when an earlier motion under the section was denied after a complete review on the merits.

United States v. Harris · filed 2020-02-21(c)

Defendant has filed two previous motions for relief under the First Step Act, and he has been denied relief on the merits. Therefore, the Court cannot consider defendant’s motion (Dkt. # 222) and it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 404(c) treats a motion for reconsideration as part of the first motion’s complete merits review, rather than a successive motion.

United States v. Rutherford · filed 2020-06-23(c)

Section 404(c) says that the prisoner must be satisfied with one “complete review of the motion on the merits.” Under the reasoning of Banister, a motion for reconsideration is part of that “complete review … on the merits” rather than a second or successive mo- tion.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the sentence was already imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments.

United States v. Krishna Mote · filed 2020-12-10(c)

Notably, however, the First Step Act expressly prohibited application of 404(b) where the “sentence was previously imposed or previously reduced in accordance with the amendments made by sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act ….” First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. Here, the District Court sentenced Mote in May 2013, several years after the Fair Sentencing Act was enacted. Thus, Mote already received the benefit of the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced penalties for crack-cocaine offenses.

Section 404(c) does not bar consideration of a sentence reduction when the prisoner previously received a reduction under Amendment 782 or filed earlier motions that did not rely on the First Step Act.

Anthony Lightfoot, Jr. v. United States · filed 2020-12-11(c)

Because a reduction under Amendment 782 is not a reduction in accordance with sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act, United States v. Stewart, 964 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2020), that prior reduction does not bar the district court’s consideration of Lightfoot’s motion, see First Step Act, § 404(c), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222; Jackson, 945 F.3d at 318-20.

Section 404(c) bars a second sentence reduction after a prior reduction under the Fair Sentencing Act, but the Government may waive that nonjurisdictional bar.

United States v. Javier Hart · filed 2020-12-21(c)

The Act’s bar on second resentencings is not jurisdictional. So we can and will accept the Government’s waiver of that bar.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the original sentence was imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments.

United States v. Alexis · filed 2021-02-12(c)

Guerly’s sentence was imposed after the Fair Sentencing Act went into effect, and nothing indicates that his sentence was somehow not imposed “in accordance with” that Act. Therefore, the plain language of § 404(c) makes Guerly ineligible for a sentence reduction.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the defendant’s sentence was previously imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act’s amendments.

United States v. Burden · filed 2021-02-16(c)

The unambiguous meaning of section 404(c) is that a defendant whose sentence was imposed after the effective date of the Fair Sentencing Act, and “in a way that . . . follows” its terms, is ineligible for First Step Act relief.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction motion when the defendant was previously sentenced in accordance with section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act, even if the court varied upward from the guideline range.

United States v. Thelisma · filed 2021-02-24(c)

Here, despite the upward variance from the guideline range, Thelisma was already sentenced in accordance with section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. Therefore, the district court could not entertain his motion to modify his sentence under section 404 of the First Step Act.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the defendant’s sentence was already imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Boodie · filed 2021-07-21(c)

We therefore conclude that Boodie’s sentence was imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act and that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the defendant was already sentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2021-07-27(c)

The District Court correctly concluded that Johnson was not eligible for a sentence reduction as he was sentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404(c) bars a sentence reduction when the defendant was previously sentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act.

United States v. Garcia · filed 2021-11-15(c)

Given the timing of Appellant’s sentencing and the absence of any indication that he was not sentenced in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act, we hold that Appellant was previously sentenced in accordance with the Act in December 2012. Therefore, Appellant is ineligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act, and the district court correctly denied his motion on this basis.

Section 404(c) does not bar a later request to reduce a sentence when the court declined to consider the earlier request for that sentence.

United States v. Carrillo · filed 2021-12-06(c)

This concern is unfounded: the district court made clear that it was declining to consider Carrillo’s Count 17 argument, and thus his motion for a reduction of his Count 17 sentence was ... not “denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits.”

Section 404(c) does not bar a motion to reconsider the denial of a sentence reduction because reconsideration motions arise from a court’s inherent authority.

United States v. Warren · filed 2022-01-06(c)

At face value, then, a motion to reconsider is not made pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act, so § 404(c) does not present a bar to such a motion.

Section 404’s retroactive relief for crack cocaine sentences does not benefit a person sentenced after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect.

Boyd v. Hudgins · filed 2022-05-26

The Petitioner received his sentence in 2013, three years after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Therefore, he is unaffected by the retroactive relief the First Step Act provides as related to crack cocaine mandatory minimums.

Section 404(c) bars a second request for relief when an earlier Section 404 motion was denied on the merits.

United States v. Earnest Ware · filed 2023-04-11(c)

Because the district court had denied Ware’s earlier motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act on the grounds that he is not eligible for relief under § 404 of the Act, a second request for § 404 relief was due to be denied.

Section 404(c) bars a repeat sentence-reduction motion when an earlier motion under the section was denied after a complete merits review.

United States v. Burns · filed 2023-04-16(c)

Because Burns had previously filed a motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and that motion was denied after a complete review on the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Burns’s current motion under the express terms of § 404(c) of the First Step Act.

Section 404(c) bars a renewed sentence reduction motion when a previous § 404 motion was denied after a complete review on the merits.

United States v. Self · filed 2023-09-28(c)

Because Self’s previous § 404 motion was denied after a complete review on the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Self’s current motion.

Section 404(c) is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a limit on a court’s jurisdiction.

United States v. Naranjo · filed 2024-05-21(c)

We thus hold that Section 404(c) is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar as the district court assumed.

Section 404(c) precludes consideration of a second motion for relief after a prior motion has been denied.

United States v. Mitchum · filed 2025-05-27(c)

And the district court did not err in determining that the denial of Mitchum’s prior motion for relief under § 404 of the First Step Act precluded consideration of a second motion under that section.

Section 404(c) leaves a sentence reduction to the court’s discretion, even when a defendant is eligible.

United States v. Richardson · filed 2020-05-29(c)

On the one hand, the First Step Act provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.” See Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, § 404(c) (2018).

Section 404 permits, but does not require, a sentence reduction for a covered offense; a district court may deny relief based on the defendant’s violent criminal history.

United States v. Brown · filed 2019-11-22

Kermit C. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222, which permits—but does not require—a district court to impose a reduced sentence for defendants convicted of covered offenses as if certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, §§ 2-3, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372, were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. ... Although the district court observed that Brown’s conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) qualified as a covered offense, the court nevertheless declined to exercise its discretion to reduce Brown’s sentence based on Brown’s violent criminal history. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief, we affirm the district court’s order.

Section 404 gives a district court discretion to reduce an eligible sentence but does not require the full reduction a defendant requests.

United States v. Phillips · filed 2020-03-10(b), (c)

The First Step Act gives a district court discretion to reduce the sentence of a defendant convicted on or before August 3, 2010, of a drug offense for which the “statutory penalties . . . were modified by section 2 . . . of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” 132 Stat. 5194, § 404(a), (b). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Phillips a further reduction of his sentence.

Section 404 leaves the extent of a sentence reduction to the court’s discretion, including whether to account for time the defendant could credit against a future supervised release revocation sentence.

United States v. Jackson · filed 2020-03-10(c)

Next, we must examine whether, in the context of a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, the district court permissibly considered the possibility of banked time in analyzing the Section 3553(a) factors of deterrence and protection of the public. ... Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Jackson’s ability to bank time when reducing his sentence and consideration of that fact did not render Jackson’s reduced sentence unreasonable.

Section 404 permits, but does not require, a district court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense as if specified Fair Sentencing Act provisions had been in effect when the offense was committed.

United States v. McCain · filed 2020-04-17(b), (c)

The First Step Act authorizes, but does not require, a district court to impose a reduced sentence for defendants convicted of covered offenses as if certain provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, §§ 2-3, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372, were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.

Section 404 permits a court to decline to reduce a custodial sentence in its discretion.

United States v. Ingram · filed 2020-04-20

We have considered Ingram’s arguments on appeal in conjunction with the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Ingram’s custodial sentence.

Section 404 permits a court to leave a prison term in place after considering the defendant’s arguments and adequately explaining its decision.

United States v. France · filed 2020-03-27(b)

Travis Nathaniel France appeals from the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA 2018 or the Act), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). ... After review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in explaining why it declined to reduce France’s prison term.

Section 404 leaves a district court discretion to deny a sentence reduction even when the defendant is eligible.

United States v. Knowles · filed 2020-04-06(c)

The First Step Act plainly leaves the decision whether to grant relief to an eligible defendant within the discretion of the district court. Section 404 of the Act provides that a court “may” reduce the sentence of an eligible prisoner, but that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”

Section 404 permits courts to consider relevant factors, including post-sentencing conduct, when deciding whether to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Allen · filed 2020-04-14(b)

Section 404’s silence regarding the standard that courts should use in determining whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence cannot be read to limit the information that courts may consider.

Section 404 gives district courts discretion to decline a sentence reduction.

United States v. McKinney · filed 2020-08-28

Tremell Rashaud McKinney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion seeking a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. We have reviewed the record and find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce McKinney’s sentence.

Section 404(b) gives a district court discretion to reduce an eligible sentence as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect when the offense was committed.

United States v. Robinson · filed 2020-09-01(b)

Moreover, in reducing Robinson’s sentence “as if” sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect, the district court had the discretion to reduce Robinson’s sentence to 440 months’ imprisonment.

Section 404 permits a court to deny resentencing when the defendant’s sentencing range has not changed and he identifies no other change since his original sentencing.

United States v. Robinson · filed 2020-05-12(b)

Robinson moved to reduce his sentence because he thought that the Fair Sentencing Act had reduced his statutory sentencing range. But it did not. And he pointed to nothing else that had changed since his original sentencing. So the District Court did not err in declining to reconsider the other § 3553(a) factors.

Section 404(b) gives courts discretion to decide whether an eligible prisoner merits a sentence reduction.

United States v. Smith · filed 2020-05-15(b)

The First Step Act, § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222, and § 3582(c)(1)(B) give courts discretion to decide whether a prisoner who is eligible for a sentence reduction merits one, and the government agrees that we should review the decision regarding whether a reduction was warranted for an abuse of discretion.

Section 404(b) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction in its discretion even when the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for the defendant’s offense.

United States v. Haynes · filed 2020-08-06(b)

The court did not dispute Haynes’s contention that the Fair Sentencing Act modified the penalties for his offense. Nor did the court state that Haynes was categorically ineligible for a reduction. To the contrary, the order indicates that the court exercised discretion under the First Step Act, but determined that the existing sentence was appropriate.

Section 404 gives district courts broad discretion to decide whether to reduce an eligible sentence, including discretion to retain a prison term they find appropriate.

United States v. Carr · filed 2020-08-12

To be sure, we find more persuasive the understanding that the district court believed Carr’s original term of imprisonment to remain appropriate, and so decided, as an exercise of its broad discretion, not to impose a lesser term.

Section 404(c) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction to an eligible defendant within its discretion.

United States v. Sterlin · filed 2020-08-26(c)

Here, although Sterlin was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, which the district court correctly recognized, we conclude from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sterlin’s motion. Based on the record, the district court did consider several factors in denying Sterlin’s sentence reduction, whether it was required to or not.

Section 404(b) gives district courts discretion to reduce eligible sentences when the Fair Sentencing Act would have lowered the applicable statutory penalties.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2020-06-16(b)

The district court had the authority to reduce Allen’s and Johnson’s sentences, but it was not required to do so.

Section 404 permits a court deciding an eligible sentence reduction motion to consider how a later constitutional ruling would affect the defendant’s statutory sentencing range.

United States v. Ware · filed 2020-06-30(b)

For a defendant like Ware, who was sentenced before Apprendi, consideration of the impact that Apprendi would have had on his statutory sentencing range is a factor that the district court may consider when deciding whether, in its discretion, to grant relief to a defendant whom Congress has made eligible for relief.

Section 404(b) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction in its discretion; a brief denial can suffice when the reasons are evident from the record.

United States v. Naber · filed 2020-07-17(b)

Here, the government effectively conceded Naber’s eligibility under the First Step Act, making the decision on that point a foregone conclusion. Given Naber’s history of recidivism, the violent nature of some of his offenses, and his lagging efforts at rehabilitation in prison, each of which the court had carefully considered in imposing the original sentence, the reasons for the ... court’s denial are plainly evident in the record. We therefore cannot find that the court abused its discretion in failing to provide a more complete explanation in this particular situation.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to deny a sentence reduction when the record adequately explains its discretionary decision.

United States v. Naber · filed 2020-08-26(b)

Here, the government effectively conceded Naber’s eligibility under the First Step Act, making the decision on that point a foregone conclusion. Given Naber’s history of recidivism, the violent nature of some of his offenses, and his lagging efforts at rehabilitation in prison, each of which the court had carefully considered in imposing the original sentence, the reasons for the court’s denial are plainly evident in ... the record, and the erroneously omitted transcript would have delivered even more clarity. We therefore do not find that the court abused its discretion here.

Section 404 allows a court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense, but an eligible defendant is not entitled to a reduction.

United States v. Smith · filed 2020-10-08

Section 404 of the First Step Act gives courts the discretion to apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 to reduce a prisoner’s sentence for certain covered offenses. ... However, even if a defendant is eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act, he is not entitled to it, and the district court has broad discretion in determining whether to resentence.

Section 404(b) permits a district court to reduce a sentence for a covered offense but leaves the decision whether to grant a reduction to its discretion.

United States v. Marchman · filed 2020-12-15(b)

The district court’s explanation for its ruling confirms that it agreed with the government that Marchman did not merit relief under the First Step Act, not that it was under a misapprehension about its statutory authority to grant him such relief.

Section 404 allows a district court to deny a sentence reduction in its discretion even when the defendant is eligible for relief.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2020-12-22

As the district court acknowledged in resolving the subject motion, Gravatt makes clear that Johnson was eligible for relief under § 404 of the First Step Act. However, the court stated that, even if it had the benefit of Gravatt and had addressed Johnson’s motion under § 404 of the First Step Act on the merits it would not have exercised its discretion to reduce his sentence, because Johnson absconded after pleading guilty, was responsible for multi-kilogram quantities of cocaine and crack, and had a history of violent use of firearms—all reasons grounded in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ... We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in denying Johnson relief.

Section 404(b) gives district courts broad discretion whether to reduce a sentence and permits them to consider sentencing factors, guidelines, and post-sentencing conduct.

United States v. Earnest · filed 2021-01-22(b)

A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 404(b) and may consider the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the sentencing guidelines, post-sentencing conduct, and “other relevant information about a defendant’s history and conduct.”

Section 404(b) permits courts to consider post-sentencing conduct and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when deciding how much to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Lawrence · filed 2020-09-03(b)

The Court is persuaded that consideration of Mr. Lawrence’s post-sentencing conduct and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is appropriate under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act.

Section 404(c) allows a court to deny a sentence reduction in its discretion even if the defendant is eligible for relief.

United States v. Thomas · filed 2020-09-15(c)

The second-step decision to reduce a defendant's sentence under the First Step Act is entirely discretionary. ... We identify no abuse of discretion in this decision.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction for a covered crack cocaine offense when the Fair Sentencing Act would allow a lower sentence, but leaves the reduction to the district court’s discretion.

United States v. Ingram · filed 2020-10-14(b)

Because we cannot tell whether the district court understood correctly the scope of its authority under section 404(b) to reduce Ingram’s sentence for Count 14, we vacate in part the order denying Ingram’s motion for a reduced sentence and remand for further proceedings.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a sentence for a crack-cocaine offense whose statutory penalties the Fair Sentencing Act modified, but eligibility does not guarantee a reduction.

United States v. Mitchell · filed 2020-10-16(b)

Because the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalty range for Mitchell’s offense, he is eligible for, though not necessarily entitled to, a reduced sentence.

Section 404 permits a district court to consider reducing a sentence for a covered offense even when drug quantities attributed at sentencing led to higher statutory penalties.

United States v. Odman · filed 2020-10-19

The district court denied Odman’s First Step Act motion because, based on the drug quantities for which he was held accountable at sentencing, the court concluded the statutory penalties to which Odman was subjected were not modified by Section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act. In light of our decisions in United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 2019), and United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020), we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for consideration on the merits.

Section 404(a) determines whether an offense is covered by the statute of conviction and its modified penalties; career offender status under earlier guideline amendments does not control eligibility.

United States v. Ramirez · filed 2020-11-12(a)

Whether a defendant has a “covered offense” under section 404(a) depends on the statute under which he was convicted, rather than facts specific to the defendant’s violation. Jackson, 945 F.3d at 319–20. Thus, if a defendant was convicted of violating a statute whose penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act, that defendant meets that aspect of a “covered offense.” Id. ... Considering the district court’s order in light of the foregoing legal principles, it appears that the district court erred in distinguishing the First Step Act’s eligibility requirements from those governing earlier amendments of pertinent United States Sentencing Guidelines drug quantity provisions. Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s March 21, 2019 and May 5, 2019 orders and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 404 does not authorize a sentence reduction for a defendant sentenced after the Fair Sentencing Act took effect.

Brown v. United States · filed 2020-11-23

But Supreme Court, Sixth Circuit, and Middle District of Tennessee case law make clear that Brown is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404 because he was sentenced in August 2012, which was more than two years after the Fair Sentencing Act took effect.

Section 404 permits a sentence reduction for a covered mixed-drug offense when the original sentence exceeds the lowest penalty available under the Fair Sentencing Act, even if the statutory penalty range is unchanged.

United States v. Patterson · filed 2021-01-07(b)

Together, Jones and Taylor instruct that Patterson was eligible for First Step Act relief because he did not receive the lowest sentence possible on a covered offense, as he was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment when the statutory minimum was ten-years-to-life. Therefore, the district court erred as a matter of law to the extent that it found Patterson was ineligible for relief under the First Step Act.

Section 404(b) does not permit a sentence reduction when the Fair Sentencing Act would leave the defendant’s mandatory sentence unchanged.

United States v. Torrence · filed 2021-01-08(b)

But Torrence is ineligible for relief under the Act’s “as if” clause because, like Mr. Jackson in Jones, his sentence necessarily would be the same had the Fair Sentencing Act been in effect.

Section 404 does not require a district court to expressly acknowledge the breadth of its discretion when reducing a sentence.

United States v. Booker · filed 2020-09-04

The court was not required to make an affirmative statement acknowledging its broad discretion under Section 404.

Section 404(b) requires a court deciding whether to reduce a sentence, including a term of supervised release, to consider all applicable § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Easter · filed 2020-09-15(b)

Accordingly, we hold that when deciding whether to exercise its discretion under § 404(b) of the First Step Act to reduce a defendant’s sentence, including the term of supervised release, the district court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to the extent they are applicable.

Section 404 does not require a district court to consider the § 3553(a) factors when deciding whether to reduce an eligible sentence.

United States v. Levine · filed 2020-10-07

Although district courts are required to consider the § 3553(a) factors at the initial sentencing, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1963 (2018), this Court has not required them to consider those factors when ... determining whether to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act.

Section 404 permits a district court to reduce an eligible sentence without requiring it to analyze the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

United States v. Downs · filed 2020-12-01(b)

The First Step Act permits but “does not mandate that district courts analyze the section 3553 factors for a permissive reduction in sentence.”

Section 404 does not require a district court to analyze the § 3553(a) factors when deciding whether to grant a sentence reduction.

United States v. Orr · filed 2020-12-08

However, nothing in the First Step Act requires the district court to analyze the § 3553(a) factors when exercising its discretion to grant or deny relief.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after a complete review without analyzing the § 3553(a) factors or addressing every argument.

United States v. Davis · filed 2020-12-30(c)

The First Step Act does not require that the district court analyze the § 3553(a) factors when exercising its discretion to deny relief or address every argument raised by the defendant.

Eligibility under Section 404 permits a court to consider reducing a sentence but does not entitle the defendant to a reduction.

United States v. Brock · filed 2021-01-13(b)

The district court therefore erroneously deemed Brock ineligible for relief under the FSA. However, Brock’s eligibility for relief is not tantamount to an entitlement to relief.

Section 404 gives district courts discretion to decline a prison-term reduction after weighing post-sentencing conduct against the sentencing factors.

United States v. Dilworth · filed 2021-03-16(c)

The First Step Act gave district courts discretion to reduce the sentence for these defendants as if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect at the time of their offenses. § 404(a), (c), 132 Stat. at 5222. ... But the district court acted within its discretion in determining that Dilworth’s post-sentencing conduct did not outweigh the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors, ... specifically the seriousness of his crimes and the need for deterrence.

Section 404 permits district courts to reduce sentences for qualifying crack offenses and gives them broad discretion whether to do so.

United States v. Suggs · filed 2021-05-07

Section 404 allows district courts to “impose a reduced sentence” for defendants convicted of certain crack-related offenses as if the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, 2372 (2010), had been in effect at the time of their offenses. ... That determination fits within the broad discretion afforded to district courts under the First Step Act.

Section 404(c) allows a district court to deny a sentence reduction even when the defendant is eligible.

United States v. Wilder · filed 2021-01-28(c)

Still, district courts have the discretion to deny a reduction even if the eligibility hurdle is cleared.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction in its discretion after evaluating the pertinent factors.

United States v. Hewitt · filed 2021-02-05

Section 404 gives courts the discretion to retroactively apply the Fair Sentencing Act to reduce a prisoner’s sentence for certain covered offenses. ... Instead, as we concluded in our recent decisions in Batiste, Robinson, and Carr, it is more plausible, on the record before us, that the district court, having evaluated all pertinent factors, simply exercised its statutory discretion to deny the motion. Nor are we convinced that the district court abused that discretion.

Section 404(c) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction for a covered offense based on the defendant’s criminal history.

United States v. Demetrius Lee Banks · filed 2021-03-04(c)

These incidents, combined with the lewd and lascivious assault on a seven-year-old child, and the other convictions, provided ample grounds for the district court to decline to exercise its discretion to reduce Mr. Banks’ sentence on Count 3.

Section 404(c) does not require a court to reduce a sentence, even when the defendant is eligible for relief.

United States v. Barrow · filed 2021-03-12(c)

We disagree. Section 404(c) expressly provides: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section.”

Section 404(c) does not require a court to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence.

United States v. Delon Black · filed 2021-03-30(c)

Importantly, though, the First Step Act expressly disclaims any requirement to reduce a sentence.

Section 404(b) permits, but does not require, a district court to reduce an eligible sentence.

United States v. Lanier · filed 2021-04-27(b)

Although we held in Lanier II that the district court had the authority to reduce Lanier’s sentence, “it was not required to do so” and had “wide latitude” to determine whether to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.

Section 404 permits, but does not require, a district court to consider the § 3553(a) factors when ruling on a sentence reduction motion.

United States v. London · filed 2021-04-22

But a district court need not consider the § 3553(a) factors to rule on a motion for a reduced sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act, although it is permitted to do so.

Section 404(b) gives district courts discretion to reduce a sentence, including by reducing supervised release while leaving imprisonment unchanged.

United States v. Johnson · filed 2021-06-14(b)

The district court did not abuse its discretion. It understood that it had the authority under the First Step Act to reduce Johnson’s sentence of imprisonment and chose to do so in part.

Section 404 gives a district court discretion to grant or deny a sentence reduction for an eligible defendant.

United States v. Vaughn · filed 2021-09-01

When the defendant is eligible for relief under § 404, as in this case, the court must decide, in its discretion, whether to grant or deny a reduction.

Section 404 requires renewed consideration of the § 3553(a) factors on a sentence reduction motion and permits consideration of rehabilitation after sentencing.

United States v. Ross · filed 2021-06-02

In sum, we are unable to glean from the district court’s order whether the court committed legal error by failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors and Ross’s post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. See Hampton, 985 F.3d at 533. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 404 permits a court to deny an eligible defendant a sentence reduction when it exercises its discretion and adequately explains its reasons.

United States v. Harper · filed 2021-07-13(b)

Because everyone agrees on Harper’s eligibility for First-Step-Act relief, we decide only whether denying that relief amounted to an abuse of discretion. ... Given this record, we conclude that the district court adequately explained why it did not lower Harper’s sentence. As a result, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after considering an eligible defendant’s arguments and exercising its discretion.

United States v. Mueller · filed 2021-09-01(c)

The district court expressly stated that Mueller was eligible, and that the court reviewed the sentence imposed, gave retroactive effect to the Fair Sentencing Act, considered each argument in support of Mueller’s motion, and exercised its discretion not to reduce his sentence. Our First Step Act precedents require no more.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction for an eligible covered offense after weighing the § 3553(a) factors, including the defendant’s conduct after the offense.

United States v. Moreno · filed 2021-09-16(b)

Because the district judge did not abuse his discretion in balancing the § 3553(a) factors, the denial of Moreno’s motion for reduction of sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act is AFFIRMED.

Section 404 permits a court to consider the § 3553(a) factors when deciding whether to reduce an eligible sentence, but does not require it to do so.

United States v. Milton · filed 2021-08-23

We did not address this contention in Williams, but we have since clarified that, while the district court may consider the § 3553(a) factors in exercising its First Step Act discretion, the Act does not require it to do so.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after considering the defendant’s arguments and giving a reasoned basis for its decision.

United States v. Pennington · filed 2021-11-30

Although “the First Step Act expressly disclaims any requirement to reduce a sentence,” United States v. Black, 992 F.3d 703, 704 (8th Cir. 2021), the district court must conduct a complete review of the defendant’s motion for a sentence reduction, meaning the court must consider the arguments made in the motion and have a “reasoned basis for its decision,” United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020).

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce an eligible crack-cocaine sentence after considering rehabilitation, sentencing policy, disparities, and the Act’s retroactive relief.

United States v. Clark · filed 2022-02-16(b)

The judge discussed Clark’s rehabilitation at length—concluding that it merited partially granting the motion. He also said that he had considered the Commission’s policy statements, the need to avoid unwarranted disparities, and the goal of the First Step Act to give inmates like Clark a chance to benefit retroactively from the reduced statutory penalties for crack-cocaine offenses. This shows compliance with the procedural requirements.

For a § 404 sentence reduction, an explanation sufficient for meaningful appellate review may rely on the sentencing factors, public safety, and post-sentencing conduct; an error in denying an opportunity to object before the ruling may be harmless if the court considers the objections on reconsideration.

United States v. Alexander · filed 2022-05-17

This explanation, which was the basis for the Government’s opposition to a reduction below 480 months, was sufficient for meaningful appellate review. ... To the extent that the district court denied Alexander an opportunity to object prior to issuing its ruling, any error was harmless given that the district court considered Alexander’s objections when ruling on his motion to reconsider and Alexander fails to indicate what further objections he would have raised before the court.

Section 404 permits, but does not require, a court to analyze the § 3553(a) sentencing factors when deciding whether to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Williams · filed 2021-11-18

In exercising its First Step Act discretion, a district court may consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, but Section 404 “does not mandate” analysis of these factors.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction even when the defendant is eligible for relief.

United States v. McDonald · filed 2022-03-15(c)

Because this court had already determined McDonald’s eligibility under the First Step Act for a reduction of his sentence, the district court needed only to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to grant such reduction. See McDonald, 944 F.3d at 772. Indeed, “the First Step Act expressly disclaims any requirement to reduce a sentence.” United States v. Black, 992 F.3d 703, 704 (8th Cir. 2021) (citing First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(c), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222).

Section 404(b) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after considering the new statutory range and relevant facts, even if co-conspirators received reductions.

United States v. Clay · filed 2022-10-06(b)

Only after weighing all of these factors—which include the one factor this Court has said judges are required to consider on a § 404(b) motion (the new statutory sentence range)—did the district court reach its conclusion. Such a thorough review of the relevant information is simply not an abuse of discretion.

Section 404 permits a district court to consider a defendant’s criminal history when deciding whether to reduce an eligible sentence.

United States v. McDaniel · filed 2022-04-19

And McDaniel’s criminal history was a legitimate factor for the district court to consider when deciding whether to reduce his sentence.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after considering post-sentencing developments and the relevant sentencing factors.

United States v. Browning · filed 2022-08-15(b)

The district court properly exercised its discretion to deny Browning’s motion. The district court actually considered post-sentencing developments, including by considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Section 404(b) permits a court to deny a sentence reduction to an eligible defendant after weighing prison conduct and personal history against an intervening change in law.

United States v. White · filed 2022-12-05(b)

Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion. While there is no dispute that White was eligible for a sentence reduction, the court was within its discretion to weigh White’s prison infrac- tions and his personal history and characteristics more heavily than the intervening change in law.

Section 404(b) permits a court to reduce a covered sentence under the Fair Sentencing Act’s lower penalties but does not require it to do so.

United States v. Marshall · filed 2024-01-31(b)

The First Step Act’s retroactivity provision is advisory, not mandatory.

Section 404 gives district courts substantial discretion to deny a sentence reduction without expressly addressing every policy argument, so long as they show they reasoned through the arguments.

United States v. Darnell Brown, Jr. · filed 2024-06-24

We are satisfied that the district court reasoned through Brown’s arguments, permissibly basing its decision to deny relief on Brown’s criminal history and conduct while incarcerated, and necessarily rejecting Brown’s policy argument about the cocaine base and powder cocaine disparity.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction even when the existing sentence exceeds the Fair Sentencing Act’s revised statutory maximum.

United States v. Reed · filed 2023-01-31(c)

Thus, we reject Reed’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by not reducing his sentence to at least the revised statutory maximum contained in the Fair Sentencing Act.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction under the concurrent sentence doctrine when reducing the covered sentence would not shorten imprisonment or otherwise benefit the defendant.

United States v. Jefferson · filed 2023-02-21

The district court properly treated the concurrent sentence doctrine as “a species of harmless-error review.” Charles, 932 F.3d at 160. As it applied the proper analysis in invoking the doctrine, and its analysis is consistent with our First Step Act precedents, there was no abuse of its broad First Step Act discretion.

A court considering a Section 404 sentence reduction must consider the § 3553(a) factors; doing so on reconsideration can cure an earlier omission.

United States v. Gonzalez · filed 2023-03-27(b)

Any earlier error by the District Court in not considering the § 3553(a) sentencing factors (without the benefit of our decision in Easter) when granting all the relief sought in the counseled motion was cured by the later consideration of those factors when denying the pro se motion for a further reduction.

Section 404(c) gives district courts broad discretion to grant or deny a sentence reduction.

United States v. Harper · filed 2023-05-01(c)

This decision was within the broad discretion ... afforded to district courts to grant or deny First Step Act motions. See First Step Act § 404(c); Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404; Jones, 962 F.3d at 1304.

Section 404(c) gives a district court discretion to deny a sentence reduction after considering the applicable sentencing factors anew.

United States v. Hynson · filed 2023-07-10(c)

Thus, once a district court finds that a defendant is entitled to be resentenced under the First Step Act, it then has the discretion to determine whether it should impose a reduced sentence. ... We therefore conclude that the Court acted well within its discretion in declining to reduce Hynson’s sentence.

Section 404(b) gives a district court discretion to deny an eligible request for a sentence reduction if it gives a brief explanation showing that it considered the movant’s arguments.

United States v. Tydearain Smith · filed 2023-07-25(b)

In light of the explanation the district court provided in its order, which addressed Mr. Smith’s argument, commended him for his post-sentencing record, and considered and weighed the § 3553(a) factors, we conclude that the district court provided a rea- sonable basis and adequate explanation for its decision.

Section 404(b) gives courts discretion to deny a sentence reduction after considering the sentencing factors and explaining their reasons.

United States v. Vallejo · filed 2023-10-13(b)

We need not decide whether the District Court could have reduced their sentences again. Even if it could have, it did not abuse its discretion by declining to do so. ... The court weighed each defendant’s arguments and explained why it would not reduce their sentences further. Because there was no abuse of discretion, we will affirm.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction to an eligible defendant after considering his arguments and circumstances.

United States v. Shed · filed 2024-03-26

In the light of the record and the district court’s reasoning, including its consideration of Shed’s offense as well as his accomplishments and good record while in custody, his contentions on appeal do not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

Section 404 permits a discretionary sentence reduction for a covered offense but does not require a court to consider one on its own when sentencing after revocation of supervised release.

United States v. Saunders · filed 2024-09-30

The First Step Act gives courts discretion to reduce a sentence for a covered offense upon motion from a defendant, but the Act’s text emphasizes a district court is not required to modify a sentence for any reason.

Section 404 allows a district court to deny a sentence reduction to an eligible person based on criminal history and supervised-release violations.

United States v. Hall · filed 2024-12-24

The court determined Hall was eligible for a reduced sentence under § 404 of the FSA, but declined to reduce his sentence based on the § 3553(a) factors, including his history of criminal conduct and supervised-release violations. For the following reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a reduced sentence.

Section 404 permits a court to deny a sentence reduction after considering the § 3553(a) factors, even when the defendant presents evidence of rehabilitation.

United States v. Rodriguez-Reyes · filed 2026-06-10

Although the district court's treatment of Rodríguez's motion was hardly robust, its decision not to reduce his sentence was surely not outside the bounds of its discretion, so we see no reason to disturb it.

Section 404(b) requires a resentencing court to calculate the Guidelines range accurately at the time of resentencing, including whether the defendant still qualifies as a career offender.

United States v. Murphy · filed 2021-05-27(b)

But the court must make “an accurate calculation of the amended guidelines range at the time of resentencing,” which includes a fresh inquiry into whether the defendant qualifies as a career offender.

Section 404 permits a district court to consider the current advisory Guidelines range when deciding whether to reduce a sentence.

United States v. Stallings · filed 2021-06-24

Indeed, in Harris we permitted (but did not require) the sentencing court to consider the current advisory Guidelines range when deciding whether to reduce under the First Step Act. 960 F.3d at 1106. Nothing in the record indicates the district court believed it was bound to keep the sentence within the current Guidelines range. Instead, it explained it saw “no reason” to exercise its discretion under the First Step Act to reduce the sentence beyond what it had done earlier. This was not an abuse of discretion.

Under § 404(b), failing to recite the amended guidelines range is harmless when the range is unchanged and stating it would not reasonably affect the decision.

United States v. Ferrer · filed 2021-07-09(b)

But even if this omission constitutes error, the error is harmless. Because the revised statutory range is what made Ferrer eligible for a sentence reduction, we have little doubt that the District Court accounted for that range. And because Ferrer’s new guidelines range duplicates his old ... one, there is no “reasonable probability” that spelling out the range would have altered the Court’s analysis.

Section 404(b) permits a sentence reduction as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act applied at the time of the offense, but does not require consideration of other changes in law since sentencing.

United States v. Shepard · filed 2021-08-09(b)

The First Step Act, however, permits a district court to impose a reduced sentence “as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010” were in effect at the time of the defendant’s offense, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5222; it does not require a court to consider other changes in the law since the defendant’s original sentencing.

Section 404 does not require district judges to apply intervening judicial decisions when reducing a sentence under the First Step Act.

United States v. Jacoby Walker · filed 2021-11-05(b)

But § 404 of the First Step Act does not require district judges to apply intervening judicial decisions like Apprendi.

Section 404 permits a court calculating a reduced sentence to include retroactive Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788 in the corrected range.

United States v. Michael Johnson, II · filed 2022-02-23(b)

Maxwell does not dictate our analysis here. Indeed, Amendments 782 and 788 are retroactive, unlike the changes in sentencing law at issue in that case, namely, changes to career offender designations. ... Accordingly, looking at Johnson’s case “‘as if’ the crack-cocaine sentencing range had been reduced under the Fair Sentencing Act,” Johnson’s corrected range is indeed 160 to 185 months.

Section 404 permits a court to consider nonretroactive Guidelines changes when choosing a sentence, but not when calculating the amended Guidelines range.

United States v. Shephard · filed 2022-08-24

Concepcion forecloses Shephard’s Amendment 742 argument. The district court applied the 292-365 month guidelines range from the PSR addendum, based on the retroactive guidelines change in Amendment 782 but not on the nonretroactive change in Amendment 742. This was not procedural error.

Section 404 requires a court to calculate the amended statutory penalty ranges before deciding a sentence-reduction motion.

United States v. Adam Williams, Jr. · filed 2022-04-28(b)

But a more substantial error mars Judge Moody’s analysis. The judge denied Williams’s motion without calculating the new statutory ranges for Williams’s three convictions, as he was required to do.

Section 404 requires a district court to calculate an eligible movant’s amended Guidelines range before deciding whether to reduce a revocation sentence.

United States v. Alfonso Gill · filed 2022-08-12(b)

The district court found Gill eligible for a reduction, but did not calculate Gill’s amended revocation sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines before deciding whether to grant relief, which it was required to do.

Section 404(b) requires a court to calculate the advisory guideline range when considering a sentence reduction, but failure to do so is harmless when the statutory minimum prevents a lower sentence.

United States v. Walter Sanders, Jr. · filed 2022-09-08(b)

A judge’s discretionary determination whether to grant a motion under Section 404(b) must be informed by a calculation of the advisory sentencing range. ... We will assume that, under Corner, the judge wrongly did not compute Sanders’ guideline range, but any error is harmless. ... But the statutory minimum prison term that the government identified in the district court, and that Sanders did not contest, was 240 months. Sanders therefore gave the judge no reason or authority to sentence him to below 240 months; likewise, any lower guideline range could not have benefited him.