Sentencing Guidelines » Chapter 1

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13

Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§1B1.13.   Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Policy Statement)

(a)       In General.—Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or the defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, the court determines that—

(1)      (A)       extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; or

(B)       the defendant (i) is at least 70 years old; and (ii) has served at least 30 years in prison pursuant to a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is imprisoned;

(2)       the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3)       the reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

(b)       Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.—Extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the following circumstances or a combination thereof:

(1)       Medical Circumstances of the Defendant.—

(A)       The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory). A specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a specific time period) is not required. Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.

(B)       The defendant is—

(i)       suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,

(ii)       suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or

(iii)       experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process,

that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.

(C)       The defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.

(D)       The defendant presents the following circumstances—

(i)       the defendant is housed at a correctional facility affected or at imminent risk of being affected by (I) an ongoing outbreak of infectious disease, or (II) an ongoing public health emergency declared by the appropriate federal, state, or local authority;

(ii)       due to personal health risk factors and custodial status, the defendant is at increased risk of suffering severe medical complications or death as a result of exposure to the ongoing outbreak of infectious disease or the ongoing public health emergency described in clause (i); and

(iii)       such risk cannot be adequately mitigated in a timely manner.

(2)       Age of the Defendant.—The defendant (A) is at least 65 years old; (B) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (C) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.

(3)       Family Circumstances of the Defendant.—

(A)       The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child or the defendant’s child who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a medical condition.

(B)       The incapacitation of the defendant’s spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.

(C)       The incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the parent.

(D)       The defendant establishes that circumstances similar to those listed in paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) exist involving any other immediate family member or an individual whose relationship with the defendant is similar in kind to that of an immediate family member, when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for such family member or individual. For purposes of this provision, “immediate family member” refers to any of the individuals listed in paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) as well as a grandchild, grandparent, or sibling of the defendant.

(4)       Victim of Abuse.—The defendant, while in custody serving the term of imprisonment sought to be reduced, was a victim of:

(A)       sexual abuse involving a “sexual act,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2) (including the conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(2)(D) regardless of the age of the victim); or

(B)       physical abuse resulting in “serious bodily injury,” as defined in the Commentary to §1B1.1 (Application Instructions);

that was committed by, or at the direction of, a correctional officer, an employee or contractor of the Bureau of Prisons, or any other individual who had custody or control over the defendant.

For purposes of this provision, the misconduct must be established by a conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability in a civil case, or a finding in an administrative proceeding, unless such proceedings are unduly delayed or the defendant is in imminent danger.

(5)       Other Reasons.—The defendant presents any other circumstance or combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or together with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4), are similar in gravity to those described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

(6)       Unusually Long Sentence.—If a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the defendant’s individualized circumstances.

(c)       Limitation on Changes in Law.—Except as provided in subsection (b)(6), a change in the law (including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) shall not be considered for purposes of determining whether an extraordinary and compelling reason exists under this policy statement. However, if a defendant otherwise establishes that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction under this policy statement, a change in the law (including an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered for purposes of determining the extent of any such reduction.

(d)       Rehabilitation of the Defendant.—Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of this policy statement. However, rehabilitation of the defendant while serving the sentence may be considered in combination with other circumstances in determining whether and to what extent a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted.

(e)       Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.—For purposes of this policy statement, an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1.       Interaction with Temporary Release from Custody Under 18 U.S.C. § 3622 (“Furlough”).—A reduction of a defendant’s term of imprisonment under this policy statement is not appropriate when releasing the defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3622 for a limited time adequately addresses the defendant’s circumstances.

2.       Notification of Victims.—Before granting a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the Commission encourages the court to make its best effort to ensure that any victim of the offense is reasonably, accurately, and timely notified, and provided, to the extent practicable, with an opportunity to be reasonably heard, unless any such victim previously requested not to be notified.

Background:       The Commission is required by 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2) to develop general policy statements regarding application of the guidelines or other aspects of sentencing that in the view of the Commission would further the purposes of sentencing (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)), including, among other things, the appropriate use of the sentence modification provisions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). In doing so, the Commission is required by 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) to “describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples.” This policy statement implements 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2) and (t).

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 2006 (amendment 683). Amended effective November 1, 2007 (amendment 698); November 1, 2010 (amendment 746); November 1, 2016 (amendment 799); November 1, 2018 (amendment 813); November 1, 2023 (amendment 814).

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,143 cases (994 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: United States v. Thomas Bryant, Jr., 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Thomas Bryant, Jr., 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 22× “§ 3582 (c)(1)(A), and the district court denied that motion based on USCA11 Case: 19-14267 Date Filed: 05/07/2021 Page: 2 of 65 the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In resolving Bryant’s appeal, we must answer two questions about the…”
United States v. Patricia Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 16× “§ 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i), and remanded, in a case in which the district court, citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, determined that the defendant’s release was unwarranted based on the 18 U.”
United States v. Ryan Kibble, 992 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “Kibble’s motion, holding that a sentence reduction would not be consistent with USSG § 1B1.13, p.s. and that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against a sentence reduction.”
United States v. Michael Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 13× “The district judge, however, did not refer to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in rendering its extraordinary-and-compelling finding.”
United States v. Anthony High, 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 8× “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. 1(A), and COVID-19 raises medical issues in the prison context that are particularly serious — it is highly communicable; it is aggravated by certain other medical conditions; and it can be lethal.”
United States v. Martin Enrique Mondrago Giron, 15 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 9× “Giron argues that the district court erred in two ways: first, it improperly relied upon a policy statement of the Sentencing Commission when deciding whether an “extraordinary and compelling” reason existed to reduce Giron’s sentence, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; second, the district…”
United States v. Keith Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 11× “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D) (2018).”
United States v. Joel Wright, 46 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 12× “Wright contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion based on the dangerousness finding imposed by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In United States v. Aruda, this Court held that the current version of § 1B1.”
United States v. Delvin Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 5× “§ 3553 (a), as well as the requirements set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, to deny Tinker’s compassionate-release motion.”
United States v. Thomas McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020). · cites it 5× “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Finally, in an application note, the Commission sets out four categories of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
United States v. Zullo, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “” 10 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 n.1(A) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2006).”
United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. And like the statute, the policy statement provided that a court could do so if “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction” without defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
Show all 1,143 citing cases →
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1) — 1 case
Fernandez v. United States (2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1)(A) — 33 cases
United States v. Thomas Bryant, Jr., 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). “§ 3582 (c)(1)(A), and the district court denied that motion based on USCA11 Case: 19-14267 Date Filed: 05/07/2021 Page: 2 of 65 the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In resolving Bryant’s appeal, we must answer two questions about the…”
United States v. Keith Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D) (2018).”
United States v. Jeffrey Rodd, 966 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Texeira-Nieves, 23 F.4th 48 (1st Cir. 2022).
United States v. John Bass, 17 F.4th 629 (6th Cir. 2021).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Barrio (10th Cir. 2022).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1)(B)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Bikundi (D.D.C. 2020).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1)(B)(i) — 1 case
United States v. Wilbert McKreith (11th Cir. 2022).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(1)(D) — 1 case
United States v. Alexander Ros Lazo (11th Cir. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(2) — 129 cases
United States v. Patricia Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i), and remanded, in a case in which the district court, citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, determined that the defendant’s release was unwarranted based on the 18 U.”
United States v. Keith Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020). “U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D) (2018).”
United States v. Martin Enrique Mondrago Giron, 15 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021). “Giron argues that the district court erred in two ways: first, it improperly relied upon a policy statement of the Sentencing Commission when deciding whether an “extraordinary and compelling” reason existed to reduce Giron’s sentence, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; second, the district…”
United States v. Joel Wright, 46 F.4th 938 (9th Cir. 2022). “Wright contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion based on the dangerousness finding imposed by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In United States v. Aruda, this Court held that the current version of § 1B1.”
United States v. Scott Sherwood, 986 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2021).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(3) — 3 cases
United States v. Thomas Bryant, Jr., 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021). “§ 3582 (c)(1)(A), and the district court denied that motion based on USCA11 Case: 19-14267 Date Filed: 05/07/2021 Page: 2 of 65 the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In resolving Bryant’s appeal, we must answer two questions about the…”
Byrd v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2022).
White v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2022).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(4)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Bell (D.D.C. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(6) — 1 case
United States v. Elwood (5th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a) — 14 cases
United States v. Elam (5th Cir. 2023).
United States v. Bradley (10th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Derrick Howell (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Jermaine Carl Curtis (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Dario Pinson (11th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Marc Valme (11th Cir. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Karamchand Doobay (11th Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a)(2) — 14 cases
United States v. Quinton Paul Handlon, 97 F.4th 829 (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. D'Angelo, 110 F.4th 42 (1st Cir. 2024).
United States v. Charlie Taylor (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Rickey Thompson (11th Cir. 2024).
Simon v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Rodney Crawley, 140 F.4th 165 (4th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(a)(6) — 1 case
Pierce v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b) — 34 cases
United States v. Quinton Paul Handlon, 97 F.4th 829 (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Shaheem Johnson, 143 F.4th 212 (4th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 139 F.4th 77 (1st Cir. 2025).
United States v. Anthony Corish (3rd Cir. 2026).
Lanier v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1) — 27 cases
United States v. Brian Jermaine Washington, 122 F.4th 264 (6th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Bryant (9th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Jermaine Carl Curtis (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Lois Jochinto Orta (6th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Bell (D.D.C. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(6) — 1 case
United States v. Orlandez-Gamboa (2d Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(A) — 10 cases
United States v. Robbie Fetters (8th Cir. 2026).
Johnson v. United States (S.D. Miss. 2025).
United States v. Jimmy McLain Moore (6th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Derrick Howell (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Ramon Blanco (11th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(B) — 8 cases
United States v. Ronald Totaro, 91 F.4th 1263 (8th Cir. 2024).
Blanks v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Jones v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Herrera v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
Aviles, Julio v. Miami FCI Low (S.D. Fla. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(B)(i) — 2 cases
United States v. Bailey (D.D.C. 2025).
United States v. Carroll (D.D.C. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(C) — 11 cases
United States v. Moises Perez (6th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Jimmy McLain Moore (6th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Williams (10th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Mulder (10th Cir. 2024).
Rodriguez v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(1)(D) — 4 cases
United States v. Mulder (10th Cir. 2024).
Jones v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Hernandez v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
United States v. Eduardo Ortiz-Cervantes (11th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(2) — 5 cases
United States v. Larry Douglas McPherson (11th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Eduardo Ortiz-Cervantes (11th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Montez Hall (6th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Jose Estrada (3rd Cir. 2024).
United States v. Wayne Burcks (11th Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3) — 9 cases
United States v. Juan Aguiar Parada (11th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Crespin (10th Cir. 2024).
Zogheib v. United States (D. Nev. 2024).
Rodriguez v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
United States v. McCoy (10th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(A) — 5 cases
United States v. Angel Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274 (4th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Karamchand Doobay (11th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Duran (10th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Iza Rosario-Cruzado (4th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Gay (9th Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Crosby (10th Cir. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(C) — 5 cases
United States v. Rufino Robelo-Galo (11th Cir. 2026).
United States v. William O'Brien, III (3rd Cir. 2025).
United States v. Ellington (9th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Juan Aguiar Parada (11th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Pompa-Villa (9th Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(D) — 1 case
United States v. Kevon Holmes (11th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(4) — 2 cases
United States v. Bruce Stewart, 86 F.4th 532 (3rd Cir. 2023).
United States v. Bright (5th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(4)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Marco Uribe (8th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Floyd (D.D.C. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(4)(B) — 1 case
United States v. Anthony Corish (3rd Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(5) — 26 cases
United States v. Jermaine Carl Curtis (11th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Myers (9th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Anthony Corish (3rd Cir. 2026).
United States v. Montez Hall (6th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Travis Lamont Smith (11th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6) — 100 cases
United States v. Daniel Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360 (3rd Cir. 2024).
United States v. Rodney Crawley, 140 F.4th 165 (4th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Eural Black, 131 F.4th 542 (7th Cir. 2025).
Steven Baker v. United States, 109 F.4th 187 (3rd Cir. 2024).
United States v. Lois Jochinto Orta (6th Cir. 2025).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(6)(a) — 1 case
United States v. Martinez (5th Cir. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(D) — 1 case
Rodriguez v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(a)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Marco Uribe (8th Cir. 2026).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(c) — 12 cases
United States v. Daniel Rutherford, 120 F.4th 360 (3rd Cir. 2024).
United States v. Brian Jermaine Washington, 122 F.4th 264 (6th Cir. 2024).
Blanks v. USA - 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Smith v. USA 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Lanier v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(c)(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Clayton (D.D.C. 2021).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(d) — 15 cases
United States v. Bruce Stewart, 86 F.4th 532 (3rd Cir. 2023).
United States v. Rodney Crawley, 140 F.4th 165 (4th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Jermaine Carl Curtis (11th Cir. 2024).
Smith v. USA 2255 (D. Maryland 2024).
Rodriguez v. United States (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
— U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(e) — 3 cases
United States v. Bryant (9th Cir. 2025).
United States v. Montez Hall (6th Cir. 2026).
United States v. Dameus Parks, Jr. (6th Cir. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.