1. A First Step Act (FSA) sentence reduction denial should come only after a
"complete review on the merits." Yet the Sixth Circuit held that it had no
authority to review the denial of Mr. Hunnicutt's FSA motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3742 where Mr. Hunnicutt complained that the trial court failed to
understand its full discretion and review his motion completely. Did the
Sixth Circuit err by refusing to review the denial of his FSA motion?

2. A Court's discretion to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act (FSA) is
not tied to the Guidelines or its policy statements the way that reductions
based on retroactive Guideline changes are. Yet the trial court followed the
same process and used exactly the same reasons to deny Mr. Hunnicutt's
FSA motion that it had in previous requests for reduction after Guideline
amendments. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to recognize
and exercise its full authority under the FSA?

Whether the Sixth Circuit erred by refusing to review the denial of the defendant's First Step Act motion