Compassionate release after a parent dies on appeal

On November 4, 2026, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the parent-care part of William Graham's compassionate release appeal because his mother died while the appeal was pending. The rest of the denial stayed in place. Rehabilitation by itself was not a reason for release (United States v. Graham, No. 25-6889). Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Graham appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap, where Senior District Judge James P. Jones presided. The criminal case is No. 2:01-cr-10010-JPJ-2. The caption lists him as William Graham, also known as Billy Graham. He represented himself.

He asked the district court to shorten his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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 appeal says he mainly relied on his mother's need for care. The opinion cites U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C) in the 2025 Guidelines Manual. That policy statement treats the incapacitation of a parent as an extraordinary and compelling reason when the person in prison would be the only available caregiver. The same parent-care sentence is in the 2026 Guidelines Manual. The opinion does not describe her illness, and it does not say whether anyone else could have provided the care.

The case was submitted on October 21, 2026, and decided on November 4. Judges King, Harris, and Rushing decided it without oral argument.

What the court decided

The court dismissed part of the appeal and affirmed the rest.

His mother died during the appeal. The judges said the parent-care claim was moot. Moot, here, means the court of appeals can no longer grant the relief that claim was seeking. They cited Fleet Feet, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., 986 F.3d 458, 463 (4th Cir. 2021), for the rule that an appeal is dismissed as moot when something that happens while it is pending makes effective relief impossible.

He also argued that rehabilitation in prison was a reason for release. The opinion says the district court was right on that point. Congress wrote that rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason. 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). The Sentencing Commission's current policy statement repeats that limit, and it adds that rehabilitation while serving the sentence may be considered together with other circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d). The opinion itself relies on § 994(t).

The court denied his motions for emergency relief as moot. It does not describe what those motions asked for.

The decision is unpublished. The slip opinion states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(b) says an unpublished opinion gives the parties and the lower court a statement of the reasons, and it may not recite every fact.

What this means for a motion

• The parent-care claim on appeal depended on his mother still being alive. Once she died, this court treated that part of the appeal as moot. The opinion does not decide what a district court should do if a parent dies before the motion is ruled on.
• Rehabilitation still cannot carry a motion by itself. That limit is in § 994(t). Programs and a clean record can be weighed with another qualifying reason under § 1B1.13(d). They are not a reason on their own.
• The opinion does not list every finding the district court made. Start with the court's PDF for the words the panel used.

Family circumstances 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.