Tenth Circuit widens compassionate release in Maumau (2021)

Originally published April 1, 2021. Statements about the law were updated in October 2026; the box below gives today’s rules.

What the law says now (October 2026). A federal judge can reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons (reasons that are especially unusual and convincing). You must first ask the warden in writing. You can file in court 30 days after the warden gets the request, or sooner if you finish the Bureau of Prisons’ appeals (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). The judge also weighs the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See who may seek compassionate release.

Changes in sentencing law. In Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026), the Supreme Court held that when Congress makes a sentencing change non-retroactive (meaning it does not apply to people already sentenced), such as the First Step Act’s end of “stacked” § 924(c) sentences, the gap between an old sentence and today’s sentence cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason, alone or combined with other reasons. Some older posts here describe court wins on that theory; those wins are history, not today’s law.
Rehabilitation. By law, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). It can be weighed together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).
COVID-19 and outbreaks. Today a court looks at whether the prison is affected, or at imminent risk of being affected, by an ongoing infectious disease outbreak or public health emergency, and whether the person faces a higher risk of severe illness or death that cannot be reduced in time (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(D)).
The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. Since November 1, 2023, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 applies to motions filed by prisoners as well as by the Bureau of Prisons, and a reduction must be consistent with it (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Posts from 2020–2023 that say courts were “not bound” by it describe the law before that date. Rutherford (2026) held the policy statement invalid to the extent it lets a non-retroactive change in law count as a reason.
Age. A court may consider a person who is 65 or older, has a serious decline in health because of aging, and has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of the sentence, whichever is less (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(2)). A separate rule covers people 70 or older who have served 30 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii)).

Outcomes vary. A past result does not predict or guarantee the outcome of any other case.

In 2021, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in U.S. v. Maumau that district courts could decide for themselves what counts as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release. It was a big win for prisoners at the time. The law has changed since then, as explained below.

What the court decided

The Tenth Circuit joined several other circuits (regional federal appeals courts) in holding that courts were not bound by the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s dated description of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Instead, courts had the power to decide what those reasons are.

In U.S. v. Maumau, case number 20-4056, the Tenth Circuit wrote:

“We therefore conclude that district courts, in applying the first part of § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s statutory test, have the authority to determine for themselves what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” but that this authority is effectively circumscribed by the second part of the statutory test, i.e., the requirement that a district court find that a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to §§ 994(a)(2)(C) and (t). In other words, we conclude that Congress did not, by way of § 994(t), intend for the Sentencing Commission to exclusively define the phrase “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” but rather for the Sentencing Commission to describe those characteristic or significant qualities or features that typically constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” and for those guideposts to serve as part of the general policy statements to be considered by district courts under the second part of the statutory test in § 3582(c)(1)(A).”

In plain terms, courts would consider the Sentencing Commission’s description of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” but the courts themselves had the final say.

Why it mattered at the time

The government had been arguing that extraordinary and compelling reasons were limited to the situations the Sentencing Commission described. Many prisoners whose reasons fell outside that narrow description faced fierce opposition. The issue even caused disagreement among the circuits.

This Tenth Circuit decision shifted the tide in favor of expanded use of compassionate release at the time. (On November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 so that it also applies to motions filed by prisoners, and in 2026 the Supreme Court held that courts must follow the statute where the policy statement goes too far.) The Tenth Circuit joined the Fourth, Sixth, Second, and Seventh Circuits in setting clear precedent for the expanded use of compassionate release.

What can count as extraordinary and compelling

Whether a reason is extraordinary and compelling depends on the person. Medical reasons, personal and family hardships, age-related issues, and even exposure to COVID-19 have all been grounds to grant compassionate release.

In 2021, some defendants also won by pointing to harsh sentences and rehabilitation. Since then, the Supreme Court held in Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026) that a gap caused by a change in sentencing law that Congress did not make retroactive (did not apply to people already sentenced) cannot be an “extraordinary and compelling” reason, alone or combined with other reasons. And by law, rehabilitation alone is not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)), though it can count together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).

At the time, this meant courts considered a wide variety of issues as extraordinary and compelling. By 2020, there had been compassionate releases related to sentence length, sentence type, and sentence structure (see U.S. v Urkevich, 2020 LEXIS 197408 D. Nebraska). Many involved defendants who would have faced a lesser sentence if sentenced today. Since Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026), that kind of gap, when Congress did not make the change retroactive, can no longer be a reason.

Some courts have pointed to remarkable rehabilitation as part of the reason for compassionate release (U.S. v. Marks 2020 LEXIS 68828 W.D. New York). But by law, rehabilitation alone is not an “extraordinary and compelling” reason (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)), though it can be weighed together with other reasons (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d)).

How to start a request

If you believe you have extraordinary and compelling reasons, you may be eligible. Anyone can file for compassionate release, and many circumstances may count.

The process also moves faster than it used to. A prisoner may be able to go to court within 30 days of filing the first request with the warden.

The first step is to send a formal request for compassionate release to the warden of the prison. The warden has 30 days to respond. This step is critical, so the request should be thorough and complete.

If the request is not granted within 30 days, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows a motion to be filed in court asking for compassionate release.

If you want help with a compassionate release request, book a consultation.