Legal-Error Claims in a Compassionate Release Motion Get Dismissed

A compassionate release motion that argues the conviction or sentence is unlawful is likely to be treated as a § 2255 motion. For someone who has already filed a § 2255 motion, that usually means dismissal. The Tenth Circuit applied that rule on October 23, 2026, in United States v. Jones, No. 24-5034. The order is unpublished, so it does not bind other cases, but it shows how courts are applying Fernandez in practice.

What happened

Darowe Jones is serving a 211-month sentence for gun and drug offenses. His convictions and sentence were upheld on appeal, and the district court denied his § 2255 motion. He then filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He made three arguments:

1. His sentence rested on drug quantities in the presentence report that were never proven to a jury, which he said Apprendi and Alleyne forbid.
2. His felon-in-possession convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) violated the Second Amendment.
3. His sentence was out of line with sentences for similar defendants.

The district court treated the first two arguments as an unauthorized second § 2255 motion and dismissed them. It denied the third on the merits.

What the court decided

A certificate of appealability was required, and denied. To appeal the dismissal of the first two claims, Mr. Jones needed a certificate of appealability. The court refused to issue one. "It is the relief sought, not [the] pleading's title, that determines whether the pleading is a § 2255 motion," the court wrote, quoting its earlier decision in United States v. Nelson.

It then relied on Fernandez v. United States, which held that "[t]he supposed invalidity of a conviction is not among the extraordinary and compelling reasons that justify compassionate release." The court added that compassionate release is "focus[ed] on granting mercy rather than righting legal wrongs." After Fernandez, the court said, "it is not reasonably debatable that, to seek resentencing based on alleged constitutional error, Mr. Jones had to proceed under § 2255 not § 3582(c)." The Second Amendment claim failed for the same reason: he "focused solely on the legal question of the constitutionality of § 922(g)," not on age, illness or another personal circumstance.

No warning was owed. Mr. Jones argued the district court should have warned him before treating part of his motion as a § 2255 motion. The court said Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), requires that warning only when a court recharacterizes a pleading as a first § 2255 motion. He had already filed one.

The disparity claim lost on the merits. Mr. Jones relied on cases that granted relief because of the old practice of "stacking" § 924(c) sentences. The court noted that he "has only one § 924(c) conviction for which he was sentenced after passage of the First Step Act, so he was not subject to the former stacking regime." It found no abuse of discretion.

What it means for you and your family

• The label does not control. Calling a legal error "extraordinary and compelling" does not turn it into a compassionate release reason. Courts look at what the motion asks for.
• A second § 2255 motion needs permission first. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), a court of appeals must certify that a second or successive motion rests on qualifying newly discovered evidence or "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." Without that, the district court cannot hear it.
• Mixing claims can cost time. Legal attacks in a compassionate release motion can be split off and dismissed, and appealing that dismissal takes a certificate of appealability.
• Build the motion on the right reasons. Compassionate release is about circumstances such as serious illness, age-related decline or a family caregiving crisis. Our eligibility guide covers the reasons the policy statement recognizes.

Our process guide walks through each step of a motion.