Compassionate release under an old policy statement

On November 3, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the denial of Leon Bernard Spikes, Sr.'s compassionate release motion and sent the case back to the district court. The judge had used an old policy statement and did not explain the denial (United States v. Spikes, No. 26-10132). Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Spikes appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The criminal case is No. 7:08-cr-00007-LAG-CHW-2. In 2009 he was convicted of armed bank robbery and of possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. The court sentenced him to 270 months in prison.

He asked for a shorter sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That statute lets a federal judge reduce a prison term when extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant it, meaning reasons that are unusual and serious enough, after the judge considers the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The reduction also has to fit the Sentencing Commission's policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.

This was his fourth motion. He filed it himself in February 2024. He repeated reasons from an earlier motion: a then-proposed rule on unusually long sentences, rehabilitation in prison, a claim that the Bureau of Prisons miscounted his jail credit, a claim that his career-offender status was obsolete, and family circumstances. He also sent a letter about his rehabilitation and asked that the rest of his sentence account for time-served credit he said he should have received. A lawyer then filed a supplement pointing out that the Commission had amended § 1B1.13 since the last denial.

The district court denied the motion in an order the appeals court described as nearly identical to the earlier denials. Judges Jill Pryor, Branch, and Kidd decided the appeal without oral argument. The slip opinion is marked not for publication.

What the court decided

The court vacated the denial and remanded the case. Remand means the case goes back to the district court. The appeals court did not order release.

The order was hard to read. It said the motion did not fall within any category in § 1B1.13. It also said the court had reviewed the § 3553(a) factors and the policy statements. Because of that mix, the appeals court assumed, for this appeal only, that the district court had treated Mr. Spikes as eligible and had denied relief as a matter of discretion. It reviewed that denial for abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion, here, includes using the wrong legal standard.

The wrong standard was an old version of § 1B1.13. The district court wrote that the policy statement had not been amended after the First Step Act let people in prison file their own motions. That was no longer true. In 2023 the Commission amended § 1B1.13 so it covers those motions. The change is Amendment 814, effective November 1, 2023. Official text of the 2023 amendments (PDF). The district court used language copied from its orders on the motions filed before that amendment.

The court also said a denial has to explain the decision well enough for an appeals court to review it. This order did not. The panel could not tell which factors the district court relied on. On remand, the district court is to apply the amended policy statement and to state its reasons.

The opinion does not decide whether any reason Mr. Spikes listed qualifies. One of those reasons was the Commission's then-proposed rule on unusually long sentences. The rule on that point comes from a later Supreme Court case, not from this opinion. A sentencing change Congress made non-retroactive cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason, alone or combined with other reasons, and § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid to that extent. Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026). The Rutherford post walks through that holding.

Rehabilitation still cannot carry a motion by itself. Congress wrote that rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason. 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). The policy statement says the same thing, and it allows rehabilitation to be weighed with other circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d). This opinion does not apply that limit to Mr. Spikes. It is the rule the statute already sets.

What this means for a motion

• The policy statement in the order has to be the amended one. A denial that still says § 1B1.13 was never updated after the First Step Act is using the wrong text. Amendment 814 took effect on November 1, 2023.
• The order has to show its work. An appeals court needs to see which factors the judge used. A copy of an older denial, without that explanation, was not enough in this case.
• Sending the case back is not an order of release. The Eleventh Circuit did not decide the family, jail-credit, career-offender, or rehabilitation questions. It did not say those reasons succeed.

The grounds in the current policy statement are collected on the eligibility page. The process guide walks through the warden request and the motion in the sentencing court.

If you want us to review how these rules might apply to a federal case, Request a consultation.