Whether a district court can refuse to review intervening changes in facts that contradict and undermine presentence report findings used to apply a sentence enhancement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 213 L. Ed. 2d 731 (2022), this Court held that the First Step Act “allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step Act.” 597 U.S. at 500. This Court also held in Concepcion 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.” Id. at 494. Whether consistent with this Court’s decision in Concepcion, and following a defendant’s request, a district court can refuse to review intervening changes in facts — arising from a trial transcript available only after the original sentencing — which contradict and undermine presentence report findings that the original sentencing court used to apply a sentence enhancement leading to life imprisonment for the distribution of 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. Whether the district court failed to follow the Court’s directives to sentence defendant based on accurate information available from a variety of sources. Whether the re-imposition of a life sentence based on a murder cross-reference, following a jury’s failure to reach a verdict on the murder count, violates the Fifth and Sixth amendment rights to due process, fair trial and trial by jury. 1