Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 sets out two steps to
determine whether the imposition of a reduced sentence is warranted for
a defendant previously sentenced under unjust crack cocaine sentencing
laws.

First, Section 404(a) of the Act predicates a defendant's eligibility
to receive a reduced sentence on having a "covered offense." In Terry v.
United States, 141 S. Ct. 1858 (2021), this Court held: (a) whether a
defendant has a "covered offense" is determined by the elements of the
offense of conviction; and (b) any defendant sentenced for a crack cocaine
offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(B), before August 3, 2010,
has a "covered offense."

Second, in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), the
Court held that, at the second, discretionary step, under Section 404(b),
district courts may consider intervening changes in fact or law, without
limitation.

The question presented is: Do this Court's First Step Act precedents
admit of the uniquely Eleventh Circuit's intermediate step whereby, for
the discrete group of individuals still serving sentences imposed before
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 446 (2000), the facts found by the judge
at sentencing control the imprisonment range and thus render an
individual who is "eligible" at step one, nevertheless ineligible for relief
at the discretionary step two?

Do this Court's First Step Act precedents admit of the uniquely Eleventh Circuit's intermediate step whereby, for the discrete group of individuals still serving sentences imposed before Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 446 (2000), the facts found by the judge at sentencing control the imprisonment range and thus render an individual who is 'eligible' at step one, nevertheless ineligible for relief at the discretionary step two?