“after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) … .” § 3582(c)(1)(A), (c)(1)(A)(i). The district court did not find any “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release and therefore did not consider the § 3553(a) factors.[1] We review that determination for abuse of discretion.[2]
Although not dispositive, the commentary to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.13 informs our analysis as to what reasons may be sufficiently “extraordinary and compelling” to merit compassionate release. Rivas, 2020 WL 6437288, at *2. The comments to the U.S.S.G. provide four “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may justify reducing a prison term: (1) medical conditions, (2) age, (3) family circumstances, and (4) “[o]ther [r]easons.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)–(D) (2018).[3] As relevant here, the comments describe the circumstances in which a “[m]edical [c]ondition” might be sufficiently serious to warrant release. Id. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). That is limited to two circumstances: where the defendant has either a terminal illness or a condition “that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care … .” Id.
- ↑ The government contends that, even if Thompson’s health issues present “an extraordinary or compelling reason for release,” the district court still properly denied release, because “he remains a danger to the community.” But because we affirm the district court’s disposition on the question precedent, we need not address that issue.
- ↑ See, e.g., United States v. Rivas, No. 20-10360, 2020 WL 6437288, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)).
- ↑ We recognize and opt not to weigh in on the split of authority as to whether this catch-all provision delegates only to the Bureau of Prisons—and not the courts—the task of identifying “other reasons” justifying early release. See United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1006–08 (6th Cir. 2020) (describing the circuit split). Even if courts properly can invoke the catch-all provision, Thompson’s case does not present sufficiently compelling “other reasons” for release, for the reasons explained below.
3
