Whether district courts have an obligation to calculate revised guidelines to reflect the retroactive effect of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 as a benchmark and anchor for exercising their discretion in §404 First Step Act motions?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The First Step Act of 2018, §404, Pub. L. No. 115-391, §404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018) (“First Step Act”) was enacted to make sentence reductions available to eligible defendants based on reduced crack penalties originally granted to many defendants in 2010 through the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 132 Stat. 5194 (2010) (‘Fair Sentencing Act”). As the lower courts implemented the First Step Act, they differed as to how they viewed the scope of First Step Act proceedings. Some courts viewed the proceedings as very limited in scope -differentiating them from initial sentencings -while others viewed the proceedings as more on par with original sentencings, matching both the obligations and discretion traditionally exercised in original sentencing proceedings. Petitioner sought modification of his crack sentence through the First Step Act. Although he was found to be eligible he was denied relief. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Thereafter, this Court issued its decision in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 2389 (2022). It clarified §404’s scope and noted that such proceedings were on par with original sentencings. Subsequently, this Court GVR’d Mr. Joseph’s case back to the Eleventh Circuit in light of Concepcion. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit, again, affirmed the district court’s denial of §404 relief. Notwithstanding Concepcion, the Eleventh Circuit maintained a more narrow view of §404 than most other circuits. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit construed the district court’s order as essentially assuming a revised guideline calculation, even though the order states i that it was not deciding any revised guideline calculation. This reading of the district court’s order also conflicts with the decisions of other circuit courts of appeals. Accordingly, Mr. Joseph requests that the Court resolve two circuit splits concerning the following questions for review: 1. Whether district courts have an obligation to calculate revised guidelines to reflect the retroactive effect of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 as a benchmark and anchor for exercising their discretion in §404 First Step Act motions? 2. Whether district court orders can be construed as assuming a revised guideline calculation when the order states that it is not deciding any revised guideline calculation. ii INTERESTED PARTIES There are no