Sentencing; Jurisdiction; 28 USC § 1291; Whether 18 USC § 3742 applies to cases seeking a sentence reduction under the First Step Act (the Act); § 3582(c)(1)(B); § 3742(a); United States v. Bowers; United States v. Marshall; Dorszynski v. United States; United States v. Booker; United States v. Foreman; Procedural reasonableness; United States v. Rayyan; United States v. Garner (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Substantive reasonableness; § 3553(a)

The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of defendant-Richardson’s motion under the First Step Act for a reduction on his revocation sentence under § 1291. It then held that his claim failed on the merits. He pled guilty to several charges involving crack cocaine, and the district court sentenced him to five years in prison and a term of supervised release. During his term of supervised release, he was convicted in state court of first-degree assault, and the district court revoked his supervised release. It later denied his motion to reduce his revocation sentence under the First Step Act. The court first considered the issue of jurisdiction. It held that it had jurisdiction under § 1291, and that §3742(a), which limits the sorts of claims that a defendant may bring on appeal, did “not provide the basis or the criteria for reviewing the denial of Richardson’s request for a lower sentence.” Turning to his appeal on the merits, the court rejected his claim that the district court denied his eligibility for a reduction under the Act where the record clearly showed the contrary. He next argued that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court “ignored his post-sentencing conduct.” However, the court held that the district court adequately explained its bases for denying the motion, noting case precedent providing that “‘a district court generally need not expressly mention a sentencing argument or alternative, so long as the record as a whole shows that it considered the issue.’” He then argued that his sentence was not substantively reasonable because the district court focused too closely on his past criminal record. Although this can be a basis for reversal, the court held that the district court adequately considered the other § 3553(a) factors. Thus, the appeal failed on the merits. Affirmed.