Did the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to to apply Alleyne to Appellant's sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Did the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to to apply Alleyne to Appellant's sentence reduction under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018? Had the District Court applied Alleyne, it would have relied on the required threshold under Appellant's conviced statute penalty of §841(b)(1)(B) which is at least 28 but less than 280 grams of crack cocaine when it reduced Appellant's sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. Did the District Court abused its discretion when it failed to apply the language and authority under Section 404(b) to Appellant's sentence reduétion which clearly states, "Impose a reduce sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed." Had the District Court applied the language and authority under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, it would have applied the Alleyne and thus, under the convicted statute penalty of .§841 (b)(1)(B), it would have only relied upon the required threshold drug amount of at least 28 grams but less than 280 grams of crack cocaine, not 280 grams or more of crack cocaine which increased Appellant's enhanced statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years even after applying Appellant's 4-level leadership role and 2-level gun enhancement. Was the District Court's decision not to apply the language and authority under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018 and this Court's decision in Alleyne and Mubdi in conflict with other courts who are applying Section 404(b) and Alleyne ‘as it should be applied? . IL