In the course of a "New Judgment " under the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA2018) new imposed sentence, what truly excess the reset clock for habeas corpus purposes in a new sentence. The Eleventh Circuit, under the FSA2018 determined that as a matter of legislative grace left to the discretion of the District Court to resentence does not allow the District Court to consider "extraneous resentencing issues ". But this plays a critical role at sentencing, which directly fonnats the plate form of that sentence. Judgments that are newly entered should be firmly viewed on the procedural foundation to which they were truly built on to detennine if that sentence was modified or anew.

The facts of this case show the broad authority given to the District Court at resentencing and displays the [wide] range a Court has when resentencing under the FSA201 8. The Eleventh Circuit determined that the FSA2018 was a limited sentence under 18 U.S.C §3582(c)(2), which defeats the purpose on which Congress enacted. . .to "impose a reduced sentence ".

The question presented here is whether a resentencing under the FSA2018 qualifies as a new judgment for the purpose of Magwood V. Patterson.

And whether the FSA2018 is a self-contained and self-executing provision that independently grants District Courts authority to impose reduced sentences, such that a defendant can proceed under the Act directly, without resort to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c).

Whether a resentencing under the First Step Act of 2018 qualifies as a new judgment for the purpose of Magwood v. Patterson