Whether district courts have authority to consider intervening changes in facts in First Step Act motions

QUESTION PRESENTED In Concepcion v. United States, — U.S. -, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 213 L. Ed. 2d 731 (June 27, 2022), this Court held that the First Step Act “allows district courts to consider intervening changes in law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step Act.” This Court also held in Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2400, that “[T]he only limitations on a court’s discretion to consider any relevant materials at an initial sentencing or in modifying that sentence are those set forth by Congress in a statute or by the Constitution.”? Consistent with this Court’s decision in Concepcion, in considering a First Step Act motion for a reduction in sentence, brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), does a district court have the authority to consider, either as “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” or in evaluating relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), intervening changes in facts, arising or discovered since the defendant’s original sentencing, that undermine findings in the original pre-sentence report and that are, therefore, directly relevant to the district court’s consideration of the appropriate sentence to impose at the time the defendant’s First Step Act motion is before the court?