18 U.S.C. § 3582

Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.—The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation. In determining whether to make a recommendation concerning the type of prison facility appropriate for the defendant, the court shall consider any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(2).(b)Effect of Finality of Judgment.—Notwithstanding the fact that a sentence to imprisonment can subsequently be—(1) modified pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c);(2) corrected pursuant to the provisions of rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3742; or(3) appealed and modified, if outside the guideline range, pursuant to the provisions of section 3742;a judgment of conviction that includes such a sentence constitutes a final judgment for all other purposes.(c)Modification of an Imposed Term of Imprisonment.—The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—(1) in any case—(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and(B) the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and(2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.(d)Notification Requirements.—(1)Terminal illness defined.—In this subsection, the term “terminal illness” means a disease or condition with an end-of-life trajectory.(2)Notification.—The Bureau of Prisons shall, subject to any applicable confidentiality requirements—(A) in the case of a defendant diagnosed with a terminal illness—(i) not later than 72 hours after the diagnosis notify the defendant’s attorney, partner, and family members of the defendant’s condition and inform the defendant’s attorney, partner, and family members that they may prepare and submit on the defendant’s behalf a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A);(ii) not later than 7 days after the date of the diagnosis, provide the defendant’s partner and family members (including extended family) with an opportunity to visit the defendant in person;(iii) upon request from the defendant or his attorney, partner, or a family member, ensure that Bureau of Prisons employees assist the defendant in the preparation, drafting, and submission of a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A); and(iv) not later than 14 days of receipt of a request for a sentence reduction submitted on the defendant’s behalf by the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, partner, or family member, process the request;(B) in the case of a defendant who is physically or mentally unable to submit a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A)—(i) inform the defendant’s attorney, partner, and family members that they may prepare and submit on the defendant’s behalf a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A);(ii) accept and process a request for sentence reduction that has been prepared and submitted on the defendant’s behalf by the defendant’s attorney, partner, or family member under clause (i); and(iii) upon request from the defendant or his attorney, partner, or family member, ensure that Bureau of Prisons employees assist the defendant in the preparation, drafting, and submission of a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A); and(C) ensure that all Bureau of Prisons facilities regularly and visibly post, including in prisoner handbooks, staff training materials, and facility law libraries and medical and hospice facilities, and make available to prisoners upon demand, notice of—(i) a defendant’s ability to request a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A);(ii) the procedures and timelines for initiating and resolving requests described in clause (i); and(iii) the right to appeal a denial of a request described in clause (i) after all administrative rights to appeal within the Bureau of Prisons have been exhausted.(3)Annual report.—Not later than 1 year after December 21, 2018, and once every year thereafter, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on requests for sentence reductions pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A), which shall include a description of, for the previous year—(A) the number of prisoners granted and denied sentence reductions, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(B) the number of requests initiated by or on behalf of prisoners, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(C) the number of requests that Bureau of Prisons employees assisted prisoners in drafting, preparing, or submitting, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence, and the final decision made in each request;(D) the number of requests that attorneys, partners, or family members submitted on a defendant’s behalf, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence, and the final decision made in each request;(E) the number of requests approved by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(F) the number of requests denied by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons and the reasons given for each denial, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(G) for each request, the time elapsed between the date the request was received by the warden and the final decision, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(H) for each request, the number of prisoners who died while their request was pending and, for each, the amount of time that had elapsed between the date the request was received by the Bureau of Prisons, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;(I) the number of Bureau of Prisons notifications to attorneys, partners, and family members of their right to visit a terminally ill defendant as required under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) and, for each, whether a visit occurred and how much time elapsed between the notification and the visit;(J) the number of visits to terminally ill prisoners that were denied by the Bureau of Prisons due to security or other concerns, and the reasons given for each denial; and(K) the number of motions filed by defendants with the court after all administrative rights to appeal a denial of a sentence reduction had been exhausted, the outcome of each motion, and the time that had elapsed between the date the request was first received by the Bureau of Prisons and the date the defendant filed the motion with the court.(e)Inclusion of an Order To Limit Criminal Association of Organized Crime and Drug Offenders.—The court, in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment upon a defendant convicted of a felony set forth in chapter 95 (racketeering) or 96 (racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations) of this title or in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), or at any time thereafter upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a United States attorney, may include as a part of the sentence an order that requires that the defendant not associate or communicate with a specified person, other than his attorney, upon a showing of probable cause to believe that association or communication with such person is for the purpose of enabling the defendant to control, manage, direct, finance, or otherwise participate in an illegal enterprise.(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1998; amended Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7107, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4418; Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, § 3588, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4930; Pub. L. 103–322, title VII, § 70002, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1984; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 604(b)(3), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, § 3006, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806; Pub. L. 115–391, title VI, § 603(b), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5239.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (e), is Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1236, which is classified principally to chapter 13 (§ 801 et seq.) of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of Title 21 and Tables.

Amendments

2018—Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 115–391, § 603(b)(1), in introductory provisions, inserted “or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier,” after “Bureau of Prisons,”.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 115–391, § 603(b)(2), (3), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsec. (d) as (e).

2002—Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 107–273 inserted “(and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment)” after “may reduce the term of imprisonment” in introductory provisions.

1996—Subsec. (c)(1)(A)(i). Pub. L. 104–294 inserted “or” after semicolon at end.

1994—Subsec. (c)(1)(A). Pub. L. 103–322, inserted a dash after “if it finds that”, designated “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” as cl. (i), inserted a semicolon at end of cl. (i), realigned margins accordingly, and added cl. (ii) before concluding provisions.

1990—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted “of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure” after “rule 35”.

1988—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 100–690 substituted “994(o)” for “994(n)”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16,661 cases (4,434 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · 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 27× “He filed a motion seeking a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 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.”

United States v. Michael Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020). · cites it 25× “The “compassionate release” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582 allows district courts to reduce the sentences of incarcerated persons in “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances.”

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010). · cites it 15× “713, Dillon moved for a sentence reduc tion under 18 U. S. C. §3582 (c)(2). That provision authorizes a district court to reduce an otherwise final sentence pursuant to a Guidelines amendment if a reduction is consistent with the Commis sion’s policy statements.”

United States v. Patricia Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 14× “ARUDA SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel vacated the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i), and remanded, in a case in which the district court, citing U.”

United States v. Ryan Kibble, 992 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 9× “Kibble’s medical conditions, when viewed in conjunction with the dire infection rate at FCI Elkton, presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for granting a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). It nonetheless denied Mr.”

United States v. Anthony High, 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 10× “Some 16 months after his sentencing, on May 11, 2020, High filed a motion in the district court for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). He stated: This motion should be granted due to the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” confronting the federal prison…”

United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 16× “Doublin challenges the district court’s ruling that, in a sentence-reduction proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) (authorizing limited discretionary sentence reductions), the sentence cannot be reduced below the minimum advisory sentence in the Sentencing Guidelines.”

United States v. Ramon Ochoa, 809 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 17× “The panel held that a sentence is not final—and Rule 35(a) does not apply—when there is no formal break in the proceedings from which to logically and reasonably conclude that sentencing had finished; that the district court’s initial twelve-month-and-a-day sentence was not a…”

United States v. Martin Enrique Mondrago Giron, 15 F.4th 1343 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 11× “ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: Martin Enrique Mondrago Giron, a Colombian national and federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). Giron argues that the district court erred in two ways: first, it…”

United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2010). · cites it 17× “OPINION KING, Circuit Judge: Raeford Nathaniel Munn pursues this appeal from the dis- trict court’s denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2). Munn’s motion was predicated on Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706, which revised the Drug Quantity…”

Martin v. United States, 974 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 21× “In 2009, Martin moved to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2), arguing that he was entitled to a reduction in his base offense level from 40 to 32 based on the drug quantity to which he pleaded guilty.”

United States v. Daniel Keller, 2 F.4th 1278 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 10× “KELLER SUMMARY ** Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of both of Daniel Eugene Keller’s motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i), without prejudice to filing a new motion in the district court after exhausting his…”

Show all 16,661 citing cases →

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Demetrius Jefferson (7th Cir. 2012).

United States v. Jefferson, 476 F. App'x 86 (7th Cir. 2012).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) — 12 cases

United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Fennell, 592 F.3d 506 (4th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Jeffrey Shane Watson, 868 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1989).

United States v. Kenneth Jones, 633 F. App'x 259 (5th Cir. 2016).

United States v. Knox, 861 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2012).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) — 1 case

United States v. Grigsby (10th Cir. 2025).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) — 27 cases

United States v. Hammond (D.D.C. 2020).

United States v. Derrick Howell (11th Cir. 2024).

United States v. Danson (D.D.C. 2020).

United States v. Farley (D.D.C. 2020).

United States v. Hunter (D.D.C. 2020).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) — 20 cases

Coleman v. United States of Am. (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Barnett v. Biden (D.D.C. 2024).

United States v. Francis Raia (3rd Cir. 2020).

United States v. Danson (D.D.C. 2020).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) — 2 cases

United States v. Brown, 974 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Warren, 22 F.4th 917 (10th Cir. 2022).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) — 56 cases

United States v. Butler, 130 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D.D.C. 2015).

United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2018).

United States v. Jarreous Blewitt, 746 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2013).

United States v. Carter, 500 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2012).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A)(i) — 1 case

United States v. Greene (D.D.C. 2022).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d) — 1 case

United States v. Polouizzi, 760 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y 2011).

— 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(1) — 1 case

Stevens v. United States (N.D. Miss. 2024).

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.