USCA11 Case: 20-11845 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-11845 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GREGORY DONELL EATMON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 7:08-cr-00133-RDP-HNJ-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-11845 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 20-11845

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: In 2019, Gregory Donell Eatmon, a federal prisoner, filed a motion for a sentence reduction under § 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. Pertinent here, he requested an amended judgment reduc- ing his term of imprisonment because of intervening changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion. The court found that Eatmon was eligible for a sentence reduction but declined to exercise its discretion based on Eatmon’s “extensive disciplinary record while in federal prison.” Doc. 57 at 2. 1 Eatmon appealed, and we affirmed. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment in this case and remanded for further proceedings in light of its opin- ion in Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). See Eat- mon v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2899 (2022). Concepcion held that “the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sen- tence pursuant to the First Step Act.” 142 S. Ct. at 2404. And, be- cause district courts must “consider nonfrivolous arguments pre- sented by the parties, the First Step Act requires district courts to consider intervening changes when parties raise them.” Id. at 2396. Concepcion instructs that district courts ruling on First Step Act

1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 20-11845 Date Filed: 09/01/2022 Page: 3 of 3

20-11845 Opinion of the Court 3

motions bear the “standard obligation to explain their decisions,” and accordingly must give a “brief statement of reasons” to “demonstrate that they considered the parties’ arguments.” Id. at 2404. Here, the district court failed to indicate that it considered or was permitted to consider intervening changes to the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 2396, 2404. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case for further consideration in light of Concepcion. VACATED and REMANDED.