Whether a district court must or may consider intervening legal developments when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018

QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented here is the same as that presented in Concepcion v. United States, No. 20-1650, on which this Court has granted certiorari: Whether, when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, a district court must or may consider intervening legal developments?! 1 Mr. Fields is aware of the following cases pending before this Court raising the same or substantially similar issue: United States v. Maxwell, 991 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-1653 (U.S. May 27, 2021) (reply of petitioner filed Sept. 9, 2021); United States v. Houston, 980 F.3d 745 (9th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 20-1479 (U.S. Apr. 21, 2021) (reply of petitioner filed Aug. 4, 2021); United States v. Jackson, No. 19-11955, 995 F. 3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 215874 (U.S. Oct. 4, 2021) (government filed motion to hold in abeyance pending a decision in Concepcion, Dec. 3, 2021); United States v. Harper, No. 20-13296, 855 F. App’x 564 (11th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-546 (U.S. Oct 8, 2021) (government response due Dec. 13, 2021); United States v. Watford, No. 21-1361, 2021 WL 3856295 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-551 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021) (government response due Dec. 15, 2021); United States v. Jarvis, 999 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-568 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2021) (government response due Dec. 8, 2021); United States v. Sutton, 854 F. App’x 59 (7th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-6010 (U.S. Oct. 14, 2021) (government response due Dec. 20, 2021); United States v. Potts, 997 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2021), pet. for cert. filed, No. 21-6007 (U.S. Oct. 19, 2021) (government response filed Nov. 18, 2021). i PARTIES INVOLVED The parties identified in the caption of this case are the only parties before the Court. ii