I. Whether the First Step Act (FSA) of 2018, under § 404 of the act, when a district court finds a defendant has a "covered offense" making him/her eligible for a discretionary modification of that sentence, is the district court authorized to review "non-covered" offenses that are part of an aggregate sentencing package under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and potentially impose a discretionary modification of all sentences in that aggregate sentencing package?

2. Whether a district court, when considering a FSA motion and finds a defendant has a potential modification of the sentence, has the authority and potentially an obligation to consider all discretionary factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including but not limited to, favorable changes in evolving caselaw decisions, favorable amendments and/or clarifications of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and a defendant's post-sentencing conduct, in arriving at a decision whether to impose a modified sentence?

3. Whether a district court, when considering a FSA motion and finds a defendant has a "covered offense" making him/her eligible for a potential discretionary modification of the sentence(s) associated with that offense, has the authority, and potentially an obligation to ensure that the original, or a new, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines calculation was/is correct for the "covered offense" and all "non-covered" offenses that together form an aggregate sentencing package?

4. Whether a district court, when considering a FSA motion and finds a defendant has a "covered offense" making him/her eligible for a potential discretionary modification of the sentence(s) associated with that offense, has an obligation, pursuant to this Court's decision in Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1358 (2016), to correct any U.S. Sentencing Guidelines errors in an original, or in a new, calculation of a guidelines sentencing range?

Whether the First Step Act (FSA) of 2018 allows a district court to review non-covered offenses in an aggregate sentencing package