United States v. Jonair Moore, 963 F.3d 725

Jonair Tyreece Moore was convicted of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base; originally sentenced to 292 months, affirmed on appeal, later reduced to 235 months via a retroactive Guidelines amendment.
Moore moved under §404 of the First Step Act for a further sentence reduction based on Fair Sentencing Act retroactivity.
The district court denied relief, relying on findings from the original sentencing: large drug quantity (11 kg powder, 1.2 kg crack), obstruction by perjury, and credible evidence of firearm use.
Moore argued a district court must consider the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors before imposing any First Step Act reduction.
The district court concluded §404 is permissive and denied relief after a review of Moore’s sentencing record; Moore appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding district courts may but are not required to consider §3553(a) on §404 motions and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district courts must consider §3553(a) before granting a §404 First Step Act reduction	Moore: §3553(a) factors are required before imposing any reduced sentence	§404 is permissive; Congress did not mandate §3553(a) consideration for §404 motions	No. Courts may, but need not, consider §3553(a) on §404 motions
Whether the word “impose” in §404 compels §3553(a) analysis	Moore: “impose” requires the same analysis as original sentencing statutes	“Impose” does not carry that meaning here; context differs and §404 is permissive	“Impose” does not automatically import §3553(a) obligations
Whether §404(c)’s bar on successive petitions unless denied after a “complete review on the merits” requires §3553(a) consideration	Moore: a “complete review” must include §3553(a) analysis	“Complete review” means consideration of arguments and a reasoned basis, not mandatory §3553(a) analysis	No. “Complete review” does not mandate §3553(a) consideration
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Moore’s motion	Moore: court failed to consider §3553(a) and post-sentencing rehabilitation	Moore raised no §3553(a) facts; district reviewed original findings (quantity, perjury, firearm) and gave reasoned denial	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed

United States v. Moore, 639 F.3d 443 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming conviction and original sentence)
United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2019) (district courts may, but need not, consider §3553(a) on First Step Act motions)
Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012) (Fair Sentencing Act retroactivity principles)
Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010) (presumption that a term used repeatedly in a statute has the same meaning unless context indicates otherwise)
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (use of “impose” in sentencing context does not by itself dictate procedural requirements)
Busch Properties, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA., 815 F.3d 1123 (8th Cir. 2016) (definition and use of “impose” in statutory interpretation)
United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard: denial of First Step Act relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)