What Head's caregiver appeal left for the next brief

On October 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Charles Head's second motion for compassionate release. The judges never decided whether the district court defined caregiver incapacitation too narrowly. The denial stood on the sentencing factors, and his opening brief did not challenge that ground (United States v. Head, Nos. 25-5300 and 25-5301). Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Head appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, where District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller presided. The appeals come from two criminal cases, Nos. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-AC-1 and 2:08-cr-00116-KJM-AC-1. The court of appeals decided them together. The district court had denied the motion.

The motion was his second under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That statute lets a federal judge shorten a prison term for "extraordinary and compelling reasons," a phrase that means reasons unusual and serious enough, after the judge considers the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

On appeal, Mr. Head argued that the district court defined caregiver incapacitation too narrowly under USSG § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A). He also argued that the court was wrong to find he was not a suitable caregiver. The memorandum does not describe the family facts behind that claim.

Judges Silverman, Forrest, and VanDyke decided the case on the written briefs. It was submitted on October 27, 2026, and filed two days later.

What the court decided

The court affirmed the denial. It said it was not deciding the caregiver questions.

The district court had concluded that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against early release even if Mr. Head had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons. The court of appeals said any error in the caregiver analysis was harmless for that reason. Harmless, here, means a mistake that would not change the result if the sentencing-factor ruling stands. The memorandum cites United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2022). Wright treats an error in applying § 1B1.13 as harmless when the sentencing judge properly relied on the § 3553(a) factors as an alternative basis for the denial.

Mr. Head did not make a separate challenge to the § 3553(a) analysis in his opening brief, the first written argument in the court of appeals. The court said he waived that challenge. Waiver, here, means the court will not take up an argument left out of that brief. The memorandum cites Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

The court labeled the decision a memorandum and said it is not appropriate for publication. Under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, an unpublished disposition is not precedent, except for law of the case and preclusion in the same dispute. This memorandum does not bind other compassionate release cases.

The memorandum does not list which § 3553(a) factors the district court relied on, and it does not say whether that weighing was correct. It did not have to. The opening brief had not asked it to.

What the caregiver rule covers

The question left open is the text of § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A) in the Guidelines Manual of November 1, 2026. That subsection covers the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the person's minor child, or of a child who is 18 or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a medical condition. Our page on a child's caregiver walks through the records that question usually needs.

Related family reasons sit in the same policy statement. A spouse or registered partner, or a parent, can qualify when that person is incapacitated and the person in prison would be the only available caregiver. Those are § 1B1.13(b)(3)(B) and (C). See spouse, partner, or parent.

On September 3, 2026, the Bureau of Prisons dropped its own child-caregiver category in Program Statement 5050.51. A family reason can still be raised in a court motion under § 1B1.13(b)(3). Head is about that court rule. It does not change the Bureau's policy.

What this means for a motion

• Both questions are decided in the district court. A judge can deny a motion on the § 3553(a) factors even when a family reason might qualify. The motion needs the family records and an answer to those factors. Our eligibility guide lists the family categories. The process guide covers the request to the warden and the motion in court. Our note on United States v. Ekene shows a denial that rested on the sentencing factors.
• The opening brief has to include the ground the judge used. In Head, an argument aimed only at the caregiver definition left that definition undecided, because the brief did not challenge the § 3553(a) ruling.
• This memorandum does not set the caregiver test. It does not define incapacitation. It does not say who counts as a suitable caregiver. Those questions stay with the guideline text and the record in each case.