Compassionate release: the warden request comes first

On November 3, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Clifford Marcus Winkles's motion for compassionate release. He wrote to the warden only after the motion was already filed in court. That sequence was too late (United States v. Winkles, No. 25-6905). Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Winkles appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where District Judge R. Gary Klausner presided. The criminal case is No. 2:00-cr-00359-RGK-2. He handled the appeal himself, without a lawyer. The memorandum calls that pro se.

The motion was under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). That statute lets a federal judge shorten a prison term for extraordinary and compelling reasons, which means reasons unusual and serious enough, after the judge considers the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Our page on the statute walks through those pieces. The Bureau of Prisons step comes before any of them.

The district court denied the motion for lack of exhaustion. Exhaustion, here, means completing the Bureau step before the court motion. On appeal, Mr. Winkles argued that this denial was wrong.

Judges Silverman, Forrest, and VanDyke decided the case on the written briefs. It was submitted on October 27, 2026, and filed on November 3. The court considered his reply brief. It also denied other motions that were still pending in the appeal. The memorandum does not say what those motions asked for.

What the court decided

The court affirmed. The request to the warden came after the court motion, so it was too late.

The memorandum quotes the choice in the statute. A person may file in district court only after one of two things, whichever is earlier. One is fully exhausting all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion. The other is the lapse of 30 days from the warden's receipt of the request.

Citing United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2021), the memorandum says the person must take that step before filing, and must take it again for each new compassionate release motion.

It gave a second reason. Even if the warden request had been timely, Mr. Winkles had not exhausted his administrative remedies on the warden's denial. The memorandum cites United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 945 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022), for that point. It does not give the date of the denial, or say whether 30 days had run.

The prosecutor raised the missing step. The court said the exhaustion requirement is mandatory and has to be enforced when the government properly raises it, citing Keller at 1282. It said Mr. Winkles's challenges to the requirement were not supported by the record or the law.

The court called 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.

It also does not say what reason Mr. Winkles offered for a shorter sentence. It does not decide a medical claim, a family claim, or the § 3553(a) factors.

What has to happen before court

The statute the court quoted has two ways into court.

• Finish the Bureau's review. If the warden does not ask the court to file, the person can appeal inside the Bureau. The process guide explains that review, the written request, and the release plan.
• Or wait 30 days from receipt. The 30 days start when the warden receives the request, not when it is mailed. Waiting those 30 days is enough if the warden never answers. A denial does not close this path. The person may file at whichever point is earlier: the end of the Bureau's appeals, or 30 days after receipt.

United States v. Wright describes those same two paths. The words Winkles quotes are the statute's, and they start the 30 days when the warden receives the request.

In this case, neither path was open on the day he filed. The request came afterward. Sending it later did not make the motion timely.

The Bureau's current procedures are in Program Statement 5050.51 (September 3, 2026). They do not replace the statute's 30-day rule. A medical reason or a family reason is still raised with the court under the guidelines, after this step.

What this means for a motion

• The warden request comes first. A motion that reaches the court before that request can be denied for that reason alone, as this one was. Keep a copy that shows the date the warden received it. That date starts the 30 days.
• Each motion needs its own request. The memorandum, citing Keller, says the step has to be done again for every compassionate release motion.
• This memorandum does not decide who qualifies for release. Illness, family circumstances, and the other reasons in the guidelines are covered on the eligibility page. Our note on United States v. Head is about a family claim the court never reached. Winkles did not reach that question either.