Whether a resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018 qualifies as a new judgment for the purpose of Magwood v. Patterson

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW | , In the course of a “New Judgment” under the First Step Act | of 2018 (FSA2018) new imposed sentence, what truly excess the | reset clock for habeas corpus purposes in a new sentence. The Eleventh Circuit, under the FSA2018 determined that as a matter | of legislative grace left to the discretion of the District Court to resentence does not allow the District Court to consider “extraneous resentencing issues”. But this plays a critical role at | sentencing, which directly formats the plate form of that sentence. | Judgments that are newly entered should be firmly viewed on the | procedural foundation to which they were truly built on to } determine if that sentence was modified or anew. | The facts of this case show the broad authority given to the } District Court at resentencing and displays the [wide] range a | Court has when resentencing under the FSA2018. The Eleventh , Circuit determined that the FSA2018 was a limited sentence under 18 U.S.C §3582(c)(2), which defeats the purpose on which } Congress enacted...to “impose a reduced sentence”. The question presented here is whether a resentencing under the FSA2018 qualifies as a new judgment for the purpose of Magwood V. Patterson. : And whether the FSA2018 is a self-contained and self-executing provision that independently grants District Courts authority to impose reduced sentences, such that a defendant can proceed under the Act directly, without resort to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c). | ii