Compassionate Release: Taking a “First Step” in the Tenth Circuit
The Tenth Circuit’s recent decisions in U.S. v. Maumau and U.S. v. McGee demonstrate how § 3582(c) motions for compassionate release can be game changers for federal prisoners. Writing successful § 3582(c) motions, however, requires both a creative knack for storytelling and a nuanced understanding of sentencing law. 2nd Chair is here to help.
In December 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act. Among other provisions aimed at reducing mass incarceration, the Act overhauled the existing federal compassionate release process codified in 18 U.S. Code § 3582(c). For the first time, federal inmates could directly petition courts to reduce their sentences. Yet confusion remained among prisoners and their attorneys. Who was eligible for compassionate release? How did courts decide who gets relief? What factors should prisoners stress in their § 3582(c) motions to have the best chance of success?
Then the COVID-19 pandemic struck, running rampant through our country’s detention centers and compassionate release became the vehicle to provide relief to our most medically vulnerable clients. However, as the COVID-19 outbreak began to decline the future of compassionate release became murky again. Fortunately, this spring, the Tenth Circuit announced two exciting victories in United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2021) and United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021), that shed light on this vagueness. Together, these two cases lay out a three-part approach to compassionate release determinations and confirm that federal courts have broad discretion to grant relief under § 3582(c).
Read more to find out how compassionate release has recently evolved into a powerful tool for securing a prisoner’s freedom.
Baby Steps: The Origins of Compassionate Release
In 1984, Congress passed the Sentencing Reform Act, which authorized the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to petition the district court to reduce an inmate’s sentence. To obtain relief, the BOP had to demonstrate that the prisoner showed “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” that warranted a reduction.
While the legislation initially offered a glimmer of hope for federal inmates, prisoners had no avenue for directly filing a motion for compassionate release with the court. Rather, they were required to submit a request through their prison warden and hope for the best.
Predictably, the BOP seldom had an interest in reducing the prison population. Between 1984 and 2018, an average of just 24 inmates a year obtained compassionate release from prison. Of this miniscule number, almost all inmates either suffered from severe medical issues or very old age.
A True “First Step”: Congress Expands the Use of Compassionate Release
The First Step Act sought to boost these paltry rates of relief by allowing defendants to directly file a § 3582(c) motion with the federal court. Under the amended statute, prisoners must first submit an administrative request for relief to the prison. If the BOP either does not respond within 30 days or denies the request and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the prisoner may then move the federal court to reduce his sentence.
Thanks to the act, federal prisoners are no longer at the sole mercy of the BOP to decide whether a judge hears their story. However, confusion still remains about what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances. In recent years, § 3582(c) has mainly been used to release prisoners at high risk of complications from COVID-19.
Off and Running: The Tenth Circuit’s Broad Interpretation of the First Step Act
The Tenth Circuit’s opinions in Maumau and McGee this spring make clear that compassionate release is not just for prisoners with medical hardships. In Maumau, the district court reduced the defendant’s sentence from 684 months to 125 months of time-served after considering a wide range of factors, none of which involved the defendant’s health. In McGee, the court remanded the denial of McGee’s compassionate relief motion to the district court for further consideration of factors that had nothing to do with his medical status.
The opinions also offer transparency into the court’s decision-making process that can help prisoners craft better section § 3582(c) motions. In both cases, the court adopted the Sixth Circuit’s three-part approach to compassionate release determinations:
· First, the district court must find that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduced sentence.
· Second, the court must find that a reduction is consistent with policy statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.
· Third, the court must consider the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable.
What are “extraordinary and compelling circumstances?”?
The real win for prisoners comes from the fact that the Tenth Circuit confirmed that district courts may consider a very broad range of factors when ruling on § 3553(c) motions. In both cases, the court rejected the government’s argument that only the federal sentencing commission could determine what factors constitute “extraordinary and compelling circumstances.” Rather, the court concluded that district courts must consider the policies of the sentencing commission as guideposts, but are otherwise free to weigh additional factors.
Specifically, the cases make clear that courts may consider subsequent changes in the law that effect sentencing exposure. For example, in McGee, the court found extraordinary circumstances based, in part, on the fact that the First Step Act lowered the mandatory minimum sentences to be imposed under 1 U.S.C. § 851. Similarly, in Maumau, the court concluded that “Maumau’s young age at the time of sentencing; the incredible length of his stacked mandatory sentences…; the First Step Act’s elimination of sentence-stacking…; and the fact that Maumau, if sentenced today, . . . would not be subject to such a long term of imprisonment” all weighed in favor of relief.
The court was careful to note however, that neither evidence of rehabilitation nor changes in sentencing schemes alone could suffice to warrant compassionate release. Rather, judges may consider these factors, in combination with others, when determining whether to grant relief.
Key Takeaways:
Given the favorable changes brought about by the First Step Act, Maumau, and McGee, prisoners seeking compassionate release should make sure that their § 3553(c) motions accomplish the following:
1. Spell out why the court has the authority to grant compassionate release in this case. The petitioner will need to describe exactly when and how he requested relief through the BOP and the outcome of the request. If the request was denied, the prisoner should describe why all forms of administrative relief have been exhausted.
2. Be creative! Remember that compassionate relief is not just for the old and the dying. The court has broad discretion to determine what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances. Creating a narrative that weaves together mitigating evidence, rehabilitation, health issues, family ties, and the prisoner’s own unique strengths is crucial to success. Where possible, the motion should directly reference the sentencing factors laid out in § 3553(a) - including medical issues and family connections - but should not be constrained by them.
3. Reference the Sentencing Commission’s Policy Statements. Remember the court still needs to consider the policies of the Sentencing Commission and that policy statements change. Before submitting a motion, check to see if there have been any applicable updates to policy statements. Successful motions should explicitly spell out how granting relief aligns with them.
4. Assess whether the defendant would receive a shorter sentence if he were convicted of the same crime today. Maumau and McGee explicitly hold that the court can consider changes to sentencing law as a factor in granting relief. A strong § 3582(c) motion should include a detailed analysis any changes to sentencing schemes that have not been made retroactive to the defendant. If no favorable changes have occurred, don’t be afraid to use statistics to demonstrate how certain classes of defendants were disproportionately sentenced to severe punishments and how this disparity may have unfairly impacted the particular defendant.
2nd Chair has extensive experience drafting compassionate release motions. If you need help crafting a well researched motion that shines a light on a prisoner’s unique story, please get in touch!
**Nicole King was involved in the drafting of this post.