Seventh Circuit panel says old guideline does not limit potential "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions after FIRST STEP Act

Last night in this post, I noted the big compassionate release ruling from the Sixth Circuit in US v. Jones, 20-3701 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (available here), which ruled that "the passage of the First Step Act rendered § 1B1.13 'inapplicable' to cases where an imprisoned person files a motion for compassionate release."  In other words, the Sixth Circuit held that district courts now have broad authority to determine what now qualifies as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction under the statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) despite the fact that a pre-FIRST STEP provision of the guidelines, § 1B1.13, might seem to limit that authority. 

Helpfully, a couple of readers made sure I did not miss another ruling from another circuit on the same topic that happened to be handed down the same day as Jones.  Specifically, a Seventh Circuit panel in US v. Gunn, No. 20-1959 (7th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (available here), had this (and more) to say on this topic:

Like the Second Circuit, see United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020), we disagree with this reading of the statute’s trailing paragraph.  It says that a reduction must be “consistent with” all “applicable” policy statements.  Section 1B1.13 addresses motions and determinations of the Director, not motions by prisoners.  In other words, the Sentencing Commission has not yet issued a policy statement “applicable” to Gunn’s request.  And because the Guidelines Manual lacks an applicable policy statement, the trailing paragraph of §3582(c)(1)(A) does not curtail a district judge’s discretion.  Any decision is “consistent with” a nonexistent policy statement.  “Consistent with” differs from “authorized by”.

The statute itself sets the standard: only “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify the release of a prisoner who is outside the scope of §3582(c)(1)(A)(ii).  The substantive aspects of the Sentencing Commission’s analysis in §1B1.13 and its Application Notes provide a working definition of “extraordinary and compelling reasons”; a judge who strikes off on a different path risks an appellate holding that judicial discretion has been abused.  In this way the Commission’s analysis can guide discretion without being conclusive....

Like the district court, we hope that the Sentencing Commission’s ability to revise its guidelines and policy statements will be restored by the appointment of additional members.  Until that happens and §1B1.13 is amended, however, the Guidelines Manual lacks an “applicable” policy statement covering prisoner-initiated applications for compassionate release.  District judges must operate under the statutory criteria — “extraordinary and compelling reasons” — subject to deferential appellate review.

A few of many, many prior related posts:

• Compassionate release after FIRST STEP: Should many thousands of ill and elderly federal inmates now be seeking reduced imprisonment in court?
• New District Court ruling confirms that "any extraordinary and compelling reasons" can now provide basis for reducing imprisonment under 3582(c)(1)(A)
• Another thoughtful and thorough opinion finds statutory reform among "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing sentence under 3582(c)(1)(A) 
• A dozen new grants of federal sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A), including another based on stacking/disparity/trial penalty concerns 
• Second Circuit panel rules unanimously that district courts have broad discretion to consider "any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant might raise" 
• Sixth Circuit panel rules "courts have full discretion" to determine extraordinary and compelling reasons for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions