What procedures does Section 404 of the First Step Act require a district court to follow when conducting its statutorily required 'complete review of the motion on the merits'?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Odis Lee Jackson was sentenced nearly two decades ago to mandatory life in prison for non-violent drug offenses. Congress has since recognized that penalty as unfair and too harsh and, under current law, a life sentence is no longer mandatory. Section 404 of the First Step Act presented Mr. Jackson with his first opportunity to seek a reduced sentence. The district court denied his Section 404 motion without a hearing, without notice that there would be no hearing, without an updated presentence report, and without giving Mr. Jackson the opportunity to present information about his seventeen years of good postsentencing conduct. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s truncated procedures as “blameless” because (1) the court had previously held that the First Step Act is akin to a limited sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and (2) nothing in Section 404 of the First Step Act requires a court to hold a hearing or consider postsentencing conduct. Yet Section 404 authorize a district court to “impose,” not just “modify” a sentence, and Section 404 indicates that a district court must conduct “a complete review of the motion on the merits.” In light of the foregoing, the questions presented are: I What procedures does Section 404 of the First Step Act require a district court to follow when conducting its statutorily required “complete review of the motion on the merits”? IL. Does the First Step Act authorize a court to “impose” a reduced sentence in accordance with such statutes as 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3582(a), or does it only authorize a court to “modify” a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)? i