Sixth Circuit panel reiterates "district courts have discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' on their own initiative" for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions

A helpful reader made sure I did not miss another recent notable Sixth Circuit ruling discussing the reach and application of the compassionate release provisions amended by the federal FIRST STEP Act.  A couple of months ago, as noted in this post, a Sixth Circuit's panel handed down US v. Jones, No. 20-3701 (6th Cir. Nov. 20, 2020) (available here), to become then only the second circuit to rule expressly that district courts now have broad discretion to determine what now qualifies as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction now that federal courts can directly reduce sentences under the (so-called compassionate release) statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) without awaiting a motion by the Bureau of Prisons.  Yesterday, a distinct Sixth Circuit panel reiterated this important doctrinal reality in  US v. Elias, No. 20-3654 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021) (available here).

Notably, the Elias decision ultimately affirmed a district court's decision not to grant a defendant any reduction in sentence.  But the ruling usefully restated the broad authority of district courts in this arena.  Here is some of that discussion:

This Court recently spoke on that question [of whether the existing sentencing guideline confines district court authority], stating that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates.  Jones, 980 F.3d at 1108–11.  The text of the guideline, along with the clear congressional purpose in the First Step Act of removing the BOP from its gatekeeping role, led this Court to its conclusion.  See id. (discussing the purpose of the First Step Act and noting that “[t]he first sentence of § 1B1.13 predicates the entire policy statement on the Director of the BOP’s filing a motion for compassionate release”).  The statement in Jones that § 1B1.13 was inapplicable to inmate-filed compassionate-release motions aligned with the Second Circuit, the first Circuit to rule on the matter, as well as the majority of district courts.  See Brooker, 976 F.3d at 234.  Since Jones, the Seventh Circuit and Fourth Circuit have reached the same conclusion.  See United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020); McCoy, 981 F.3d at 281–82.

Thus, there has emerged a newfound consensus among the courts, and the government provides no compelling reason for us to disturb the consensus of our sister Circuits. Therefore, we hold that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates, and so district courts need not consider it when ruling on those motions.  Further, we clarify that, as in Jones and Ruffin, district courts may deny compassionate-release motions when any of the three prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is lacking and do not need to address the others....  And, in the absence of an applicable policy statement for inmate-filed compassionate-release motions, district courts have discretion to define “extraordinary and compelling” on their own initiative.  See Jones, 980 F.3d at 1111; Ruffin, 978 F.3d at 1007 (suggesting that without an “‘applicable’ policy statement for motions by defendants . . . district court[s] may freely identify extraordinary and compelling reasons”).

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
• Seventh Circuit panel says old guideline does not limit potential "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for 3582(c)(1)(A) motions after FIRST STEP Act 
• Fourth Circuit becomes the fourth circuit to embrace a robust view of sentence reduction authority under 3582(c)(1)(A) after FIRST STEP Act