In United States v. Chen, --- F.4th ---, No. 20-50333 (9th Cir. 2022), the Court vacated the district court’s denial of Howard Chen’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and remanded.
The issue was whether a district court may consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The Court held that it could.
"We now join the First, Fourth, and Tenth circuits and conclude that district courts may consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when analyzing extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A). There is no textual basis for precluding district courts from considering non-retroactive changes in sentencing law when determining what is extraordinary and compelling."
"To hold that district courts cannot consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law would be to create a categorical bar against a particular factor, which Congress itself has not done. In fact, such a categorical bar would seemingly contravene the original intent behind the compassionate release statute, which was created to provide the “need for a ‘safety valve’ with respect to situations in which a defendant’s circumstances had changed such that the length of continued incarceration no longer remained equitable.”
"We instead follow our precedent in Aruda and allow district courts to consider any extraordinary and compelling reason a defendant might raise, including § 403(a)’s non-retroactive changes in sentencing law."
