Why Not?--The Sixth Circuit Explains How Much a District Court Must Explain the Denial of Compassionate Release

Shortly after learning to talk, we learn to ask, “Why?” Children pepper their parents with why questions. The endless questioning causes many parents to say, “Because!” (My father’s favorite response to my questions about why something happened in a movie was, “It’s in the script.” So helpful.) It’s easy to understand, then, why someone asking for mercy in the age of a pandemic would want to know why they must remain in prisons where, to date, 209 people have died.

Unable to socially distance, many incarcerated people have filed motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (a.k.a., “compassionate release”). How much of an explanation are they owed when their requests are denied?

In 2018, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to allow incarcerated people to file motions for a sentence reduction. Before then, the Bureau of Prisons alone could file such motions, and it did so rarely. The combination of a new statute and the pandemic has caused the law in this area to develop at a rapid clip. Here’s what the Sixth Circuit has said so far about what this law requires:

·   Before filing a motion for a sentence reduction, incarcerated people must “exhaust[] all administrative rights,” or, alternatively, wait 30 days after the warden’s first “receipt of [his] request.” United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 832 (6th Cir. 2020).

·   The Court must  determine whether the person presents “extraordinary and compelling reasons” and whether a sentence reduction is consistent with the purposes of punishment. United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1106 (6th Cir. 2020)

·     For now, there are no “applicable policy statements” explaining what that term means because the Sentencing Commission has not promulgated any since the First Step Act became law. United States v. Elias, --- F.3d ---, No. 20-3654, 2021 WL 50169, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) (citing Jones, 980 F.3d at 1108). Section 1B1.13 thus no longer binds district courts’ determination of what an “extraordinary and compelling reason” is.

·   District courts must provide reasons for granting or denying a motion for sentence reduction to allow for meaningful appellate review. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1112­-13.

In 2009, Jeffrey Hampton was sentenced to serve 204 months for participating in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting the possession of a firearm in furtherance of that conspiracy. The district judge later reduced the sentence to 180 months as a result to a retroactive change to the drug guidelines. In 2020, like many other incarcerated people who fear for their health and safety, Mr. Hampton filed a motion for compassionate release. The government opposed the motion, as it has done in the vast majority of these cases.

     The district court provided Mr. Hampton the following explanation for denying his motion: “Defendant’s Emergency Motion . . . is DENIED for the reasons stated in the response brief. The Defendant has not met the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(A)(i).” But the government provided a number of reasons to reject the motion. It argued that a sentence reduction would be inconsistent with the purposes of punishment as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It also claimed that Mr. Hampton’s medical conditions were not sufficiently serious to meet the policy statement’s definition as explained in the commentary--an argument the Sixth Circuit has now rejected.

The Sixth Circuit could not discern—let alone review—the legality or reasonableness of the district court’s decision because it could have relied on a misapplication of the law. Mr. Hampton now has another chance to convince the district court to grant his emergency request for release. Perhaps this time he will get more of an explanation.