How a partial compassionate release reduction held up

On November 6, 2026, the Fourth Circuit affirmed an order that granted Mark Kerry Crenshaw's compassionate release motion in part and did not grant a larger reduction. The panel found no reversible error (United States v. Crenshaw, No. 25-6173). Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Crenshaw appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk, where District Judge Mark S. Davis presided. The criminal case is No. 2:90-cr-00117-MSD-1. The order under review is dated February 26, 2025.

He represented himself. The case was submitted on the briefs on October 7, 2026. Judges Niemeyer, Gregory, and Harris decided it on November 6 without oral argument.

The district court granted part of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1). That statute lets a federal judge reduce a prison term for extraordinary and compelling reasons, meaning reasons that are unusual and serious enough, after the judge looks at the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The opinion does not say what the conviction was, how long the sentence was, how many months the court took off, or which facts the district court treated as extraordinary and compelling.

What the court decided

The court of appeals affirmed. It reviewed the ruling for abuse of discretion, citing United States v. Holley, 179 F.4th 985, 989 (4th Cir. 2026).

The opinion describes the district court's job in two steps. It quotes United States v. Moody, 115 F.4th 304, 310 (4th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Bond, 56 F.4th 381, 383 (4th Cir. 2023). First, the sentencing court decides whether the person is eligible. Eligibility takes a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons, plus a reduction consistent with applicable policy statements from the Sentencing Commission. Second, the court considers whether the § 3553(a) factors support relief.

After reading his appellate papers and the record, the panel found no reversible error in the decision not to grant a larger reduction. It cited Rutherford v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1330-31, 1335 (2026), also reported at 608 U.S. 454. In Rutherford, the Supreme Court held that a sentencing change Congress made non-retroactive cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason, alone or combined with other reasons. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid to that extent. The Fourth Circuit opinion does not say whether the request for a larger cut rested on that kind of change.

The same sentence cites Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244 (2008). The quoted rule is that an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party. The opinion does not say whether the United States filed its own appeal.

A footnote says the court granted his motion to supplement the issues and considered those additional issues. It does not list them.

The decision is unpublished. The slip opinion states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

What this means for a motion

• A partial grant can be the order that reaches the court of appeals. Here the district court granted some relief and stopped short of a larger reduction. The Fourth Circuit left that order in place.
• An appeal seeking more time off is a different question from whether any reduction was allowed. This opinion addresses the refusal to cut more. It does not set out the facts behind the partial grant.
• A non-retroactive sentencing change still cannot carry the motion. That limit is Rutherford. This opinion cites the pages. It does not apply them to a described set of facts, because it does not describe the facts.
• The opinion is short. The court's PDF has the panel's words. The February 26, 2025 district court order is the paper that would show the size of the reduction and the reasons. This appeal decision does not reprint it.

The two-step review sits on the rules collected on the eligibility page. The process guide walks through the warden request and the motion in the sentencing court. Our note on Rutherford explains the non-retroactive-change limit in plain language.

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