United States v. Hosa Howard, 989 F.3d 1068

Southern District of Iowa issued Administrative Order 19-AO-1-P (Jan. 17, 2019) appointing the Office of the Federal Public Defender to handle First Step Act cases.
Howard was convicted in 2008 of conspiracy involving 50 grams of crack cocaine and sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.
Howard filed a pro se First Step Act motion (Jan. 2, 2019) requesting appointment of counsel; the FPD was later appointed.
On Dec. 2, 2019 the district court denied Howard’s motion, concluding his advisory Guidelines range as a career offender did not change under the First Step Act.
The FPD moved for reconsideration to allow time to file a supplemental brief; the district court denied reconsideration before counsel submitted any arguments.
The parties agree Howard is eligible for First Step Act relief; the Eighth Circuit held the district court’s denial lacked consideration of party arguments and a reasoned basis, so it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Howard is eligible for relief under §404 of the First Step Act	Howard is eligible for resentencing under the Act	District court viewed career-offender status as leaving Guidelines unchanged	Parties agree Howard is eligible; eligibility not disputed on appeal
Whether district court erred by denying relief before counsel could file a supplemental brief	Court should consider counsel’s arguments and not deny before counsel files	Court relied on career-offender conclusion and denied the motion	Denial was improper because court failed to consider any party arguments, preventing meaningful appellate review; reversed and remanded
Whether district court needed to apply 18 U.S.C. §3553 factors in deciding relief	Howard implied court should consider mitigating factors (or at least hear arguments)	Court can decline to consider §3553 factors because consideration is discretionary	Court may but need not consider §3553 factors; regardless, it must consider parties’ arguments and provide a reasoned basis to permit review

United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (describing First Step Act retroactivity for Fair Sentencing Act changes)
United States v. Moore, 963 F.3d 725 (8th Cir. 2020) (explaining that district court must provide reasoned basis and consider arguments for First Step Act motions)
United States v. Williams, 973 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (noting that consideration of §3553 factors is permissive in First Step Act proceedings)
United States v. Booker, 974 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate-review standard requires district court to set forth enough to show it considered parties’ arguments)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (standard for appellate review of sentencing explanations)