UNITED STATES v. EDWARDS A1 (2020)

Alphonso Edwards appeals the denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). The district court ruled that Edwards was eligible for a sentence reduction under the Act but denied his motion to reduce his sentence. Edwards argues that the district court erred by denying his motion without holding a hearing where he was present. We affirm.

Edwards's argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Denson, 963 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2020), where we held that a defendant does not have a right to be present when the district court considers a motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act. Id., op. at 1082, 1083–84. We rejected the same argument that Edwards makes: that the “significant discretion” exercised by the district court under the Act makes its ruling a “critical stage” that requires a movant's presence. See United States v. Brown, 879 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2018). We held that “a sentencing modification under the First Step Act does not qualify as a ‘critical stage in the proceedings’ ” because the district court conducts a limited review of a sentence instead of a full resentencing. Denson, op. at 1084–85. No error occurred when the district court denied Edwards's motion without holding a hearing where he was present.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: