Federal Sentencing Reduction: Compassionate Release and First Step Act

Welcome to Federal Lawyers. Our goal is to give you the honest truth about compassionate release that most law firm websites won’t tell you. The system has a name that sounds humanitarian. It isn’t. What follows is the reality of federal sentencing reduction through compassionate release – and why the First Step Act changed everything while changing almost nothing.

You’ve probably heard that the First Step Act of 2018 made compassionate release easier to obtain. That’s technically true. Before the Act, federal prisoners had to ask the Bureau of Prisons for permission to file a court motion. The BOP almost never said yes. Now prisoners can go directly to court after 30 days. That sounds like progress. It sounds like the system finally developed some actual compassion.

Here’s the reality: federal courts now deny 84% of compassionate release motions. Read that number again. Eighty-four percent. The First Step Act removed the BOP as gatekeeper and handed that role to federal judges – who turned out to be almost as restrictive. According to USSC data from FY 2024, the overwhelming majority of inmates who file for compassionate release are told no. The “compassion” exists only in the statute’s name.

The 84% Wall: Why “Compassionate” Release Almost Never Happens

The numbers dont lie. When the USSC released its FY 2024 compassionate release statistics, they revealed what defense attorneys have known for years: this isnt a system designed to grant relief. Its a system designed to deny it. Heres the kicker: even when you meet every technical requirement, courts find reasons to say no.

The statute requires “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances. That phrase – extraordinary and compelling – does alot of heavy lifting. Courts have interpreted it to mean your dying. Literaly dying. And sometimes that isnt enough either. Carlos Tapia-Ponce was 94 years old and terminaly ill when the court denied his motion. He died the following month in federal prison. The court said his death wasnt imminent enough. Think about that. Ninety-four years old. Terminal diagnosis. Denied becuase he might live another few months.

Most people assume that if your sick enough, if your circumstances are dire enough, the system will show some humanity. Thats not how it works. The system evaluates your suffering against a legal standard so narrow that most genuine emergencies dont qualify. Youve got cancer? Courts have denied cancer patients. Youve got COVID complications and respiratory failure? Courts denied those too during the pandemic. The “extraordinary and compelling” language has become a wall, not a gateway.

Before the First Step Act, 5% of compassionate release applicants died while waiting for the BOP to decide their cases. The system wasnt slow by accident. It was designed for denial through delay.

Before First Step Act: The BOP Gatekeeping Era

Let that sink in. From 2006 to 2011, the Bureau of Prisons approved an average of 24 compassionate release requests per year. Twenty-four. Out of more then 200,000 federal inmates. The DOJ Inspector General documented this in a scathing 2013 report that exposed how the BOP had basicly shut down the entire program.

The BOP didnt just deny most requests. It ignored them. Applications sat in administrative limbo for months, sometimes years. Prisoners died waiting for bureaucrats to open their files. Family members watched loved ones deteriorate while the BOP debated whether terminal illness was “terminal enough.” The average processing time exceeded two years – which meant that for many applicants, the only release they recieved was death.

Heres whats genuinly disturbing about this era: the BOP had absolutly no incentive to approve requests. Every approval reduced their inmate population, which reduced their funding, which reduced their institutional power. The conflict of interest was baked into the system. The agency tasked with deciding whether someone deserved compassionate release was the same agency that benefited from keeping them incarcerated.

The named examples from this era are haunting. Anthony Bell filed for compassionate release through the BOP. Denied. He died two days later in his cell. The BOP found his circumstances werent “extraordinary and compelling” enough. Tommy Leftwich was 78 years old, wheelchair-bound, suffering multiple chronic conditions. Denied. The BOP said he could recieve “adequate care” in the prison medical facility. Michael Mahoney applied through the proper channels, waited 17 months for a decision. Seventeen months of dying while bureaucrats shuffled paper. He was eventualy granted release, but those 17 months were stolen from whatever time he had left.

Congress passed the First Step Act specificaly to end this gatekeeping. The Act allowed prisoners to file directly in court after either exhausting BOP remedies or waiting 30 days – whichever came first. This was supposed to be the solution. Bypass the BOP. Go straight to federal judges. Let the courts decide.

DEFENSE TEAM SPOTLIGHT

Todd Spodek

Lead Attorney & Founder

Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.

NY Bar Admitted Multi-State Licensed Federal Courts

Meet the Full Team

The First Step Act Promise vs. Reality

OK so what actualy happened when prisoners could finaly bypass the BOP? Courts became the new gatekeepers. And courts, it turns out, are nearly as restrictive as the BOP ever was.

The First Step Act gave federal judges authority to consider “any extraordinary and compelling reason” for release – thats language from the United States v. Brooker decision in the Second Circuit. Courts arent limited to the narrow categories the BOP used. They can consider rehabilitation, family circumstances, changes in sentancing law, the defendants health, their age, there record in prison. This flexibility was supposed to make the system more humane.

Legal Scenario: What Would You Do?

Scenario

Your father is 67 years old and serving a 20-year federal sentence for a non-violent drug offense handed down in 2012. He has developed stage 3 kidney disease and you've heard the First Step Act made it easier to petition for early release.

Can my father file for compassionate release himself, or does he still need the Bureau of Prisons to file a motion on his behalf?

Attorney's Answer

Before the First Step Act of 2018, only the Bureau of Prisons could file a compassionate release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and they almost never did. The First Step Act changed this by allowing defendants to file motions directly with the court after exhausting administrative remedies or waiting 30 days after submitting a request to the warden, whichever comes first. Your father's medical condition could qualify as an 'extraordinary and compelling reason' under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, but the court will also weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, so having an experienced federal attorney present a compelling case documenting his deteriorating health and reduced risk to public safety is critical.

This is general information only. Contact us for advice specific to your situation.

But heres the thing: flexibility cuts both ways. When judges have discretion, they exercise it. And most federal judges exercise there discretion toward denial. The 84% denial rate tells you everything you need to know about how judges interpret “extraordinary and compelling.” They interpret it narrowly. Conservatively. With a thumb on the scale against release.

The most common reasons for denial include: circumstances not extraordinary enough, sentancing factors weigh against release, defendant poses ongoing danger, or – and this one appears constantly – the defendant hasnt served enough of their sentence to warrant early release. That last reason is circuler logic. The whole point of compassionate release is that circumstances have changed since sentancing. But courts use the original sentence as a baseline and ask whether the defendant has “earned” early release through sufficient incarceration. Thats not compassion. Thats bureaucratic punishment-maximization.

The Geographic Lottery: Where Your Imprisoned Matters More Than Your Case