United States v. James Howard, 962 F.3d 1013

In 2007 James Howard pleaded guilty to, among other counts, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack).
The plea agreement and the presentence investigation report attributed at least 1.5 kilograms of crack to Howard for sentencing, producing a Guidelines range of 135–168 months.
The district court sentenced Howard to 135 months’ imprisonment on the relevant drug count.
In June 2019 Howard moved for a sentence reduction under §404 of the First Step Act, arguing he was eligible because his statute of conviction referenced 50 grams (the Fair Sentencing Act later raised the mandatory-minimum threshold).
The district court denied relief, finding Howard ineligible based on the larger drug quantity accepted at sentencing; the court also stated that even if eligible it would decline to exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit held the district court erred in its eligibility analysis but affirmed because the district court had expressly and properly exercised its discretion to deny a reduction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether First Step Act eligibility is determined by the statute of conviction or by the drug quantity attributed at sentencing	Howard: eligibility depends on the statute of conviction (the offense required proof of 50 grams), so he is a "covered" offender under §404	Government/District: the drug quantity accepted in the plea/PSR (1.5 kg) controls, making penalties unchanged and rendering him ineligible	Court: First Step Act applies to offenses (statute of conviction); the district court erred in finding Howard ineligible
Whether the district court’s discretionary denial of a First Step Act reduction was reversible	Howard: district should exercise discretion to reduce his sentence	Government/District: district court properly exercised discretion in denying relief and there is no reversible error	Court: district court explicitly considered and denied relief in the exercise of its discretion; appellate court affirmed (no reversible error)

United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (First Step Act eligibility analysis: Act applies to offenses, not conduct)