Fifth Circuit: Age 60 and a Clean Record Were Not Enough

Getting older and keeping a clean prison record are not, by themselves, grounds for compassionate release. The Fifth Circuit said so on October 26, 2026, in United States v. Bell, No. 26-10538. The opinion is unpublished, so it does not bind other Fifth Circuit cases. But it shows how courts apply the age and rehabilitation rules.

What happened

Robert Bell is serving a 240-month federal sentence for armed carjacking out of the Northern District of Texas. He asked for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion.

On appeal, Mr. Bell pointed to three facts. He is 60 years old. He has been in custody without a break for 33 years. And he has never had a disciplinary report.

The Fifth Circuit held that he had not shown those facts were "either extraordinary or compelling." It found no arguable abuse of discretion and dismissed the appeal as frivolous. Because of that ruling, the court did not reach his arguments about the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

In the district court, Mr. Bell had also argued that a guideline the judge used at sentencing to depart upward, USSG §5K2.3, was deleted in 2025. He dropped that argument on appeal, so the court did not decide it.

Why age 60 did not qualify

The Sentencing Commission's policy statement, USSG §1B1.13, lists the reasons a court can treat as extraordinary and compelling. Its age reason, §1B1.13(b)(2), has three parts. The person must:

• be at least 65 years old,
• be going through a serious decline in physical or mental health because of aging, and
• have served at least 10 years or 75% of the prison term, whichever is less.

Mr. Bell was 60, and the opinion does not mention any claim of age-related decline.

The statute has a separate age route in § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). It requires age 70, at least 30 years served on a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), and a finding by the Bureau of Prisons that the person is not a danger. Mr. Bell was not yet 70.

Why a clean record was not enough

Congress told the Commission that "[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason" (28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). The policy statement repeats that rule in §1B1.13(d). The Fifth Circuit cited both.

The same subsection says rehabilitation can still be weighed together with other circumstances. So a clean record and decades of good conduct still count. The policy statement lets a court weigh them together with a recognized reason, such as a serious medical condition, age-related decline or a family caregiving crisis.

About the deleted guideline

A change to the guidelines that the Commission did not make retroactive generally cannot be used to show an extraordinary and compelling reason. §1B1.13(b)(6) and (c) both carve out guideline amendments that are not retroactive. The Supreme Court's decision in Rutherford v. United States (May 28, 2026) closed a related door for sentencing changes Congress did not make retroactive. See our post on Rutherford.

What this means for you and your family

If your loved one is in their late 50s or early 60s with a long sentence served and a good record, those facts matter, but they need company. Ask:

• Is there a medical condition, or a decline from aging, that limits self-care in prison? Our page on elderly prisoners explains the age rules.
• Has a family member who depends on them become incapacitated, or died?
• Is the Bureau of Prisons failing to provide needed medical care?

Every motion still starts with a request to the warden. The court can hear it after 30 days pass from the warden's receipt, or sooner if the Bureau's appeals are finished (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). Our process guide walks through each step.