Balancing Extraordinary Circumstances and Community Safety: The Tenth Circuit’s Framework for Compassionate Release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

Introduction

United States v. Sali, decided April 11, 2025 by the Tenth Circuit, addresses the scope of a district court’s discretion in ruling on a compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). James Scott Sali, a federal prisoner serving a 60-year sentence for drug-trafficking and firearms offenses, sought a reduction based on his deteriorating health, an alleged sentencing disparity from “stacked” firearms counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and his rehabilitative efforts. The district court assumed those factors might qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” but denied relief because it found Sali continued to pose a danger under the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement and § 3142(g) public-safety criteria. Sali appealed the denial, challenging the court’s weighing of his post-conviction conduct and its reliance on pre-incarceration history.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, affirmed the district court’s denial of Sali’s motion. Applying the three-step framework articulated in United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021), the panel held:

While the district court assumed Sali’s health issues and sentencing disparity could qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” it properly proceeded to step two.
The court correctly determined that a sentence reduction would conflict with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement—USSG 1B1.13(a)(2)—which incorporates the dangerousness factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Because the district court denied relief on step two, it was not required to reach the § 3553(a) factors at step three.

The court found Sali’s pre-incarceration violent conduct, his involvement in a scheme to murder an informant, plus recent disciplinary infractions for medication abuse and disruptive behavior, established a continuing danger to the community. The panel concluded there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis and affirmed the order denying compassionate release.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021)—articulating the three-step test for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions.
United States v. Bradley, 97 F.4th 1214 (10th Cir. 2024)—defining abuse-of-discretion review in compassionate-release contexts.
United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2020)—clarifying the scope of district court discretion and standards for arbitrary or capricious decisions.
United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932 (10th Cir. 2021)—emphasizing that courts cannot deny relief based on § 3553(a) without first addressing extraordinary and compelling reasons.
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G), 32.1—procedural rules on oral argument and publication.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied a structured analysis:

Step One—Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons: The district court assumed, without deciding, that Sali’s medical conditions and perceived sentencing disparity qualified. This assumption avoided a premature denial on the merits of his factual claims.
Step Two—Consistency with Policy Statements: USSG 1B1.13(a)(2) requires a defendant not pose a danger under the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The court examined:
- The nature and circumstances of Sali’s offense (large meth-trafficking operation, firearms use, conspiracy to murder).
- Weight of the evidence (undisputed serious conduct).
- Sali’s history and characteristics (twelve prior violent or weapons-related convictions).
- Seriousness of danger if released (recent prison infractions for medication abuse and disruptive behavior, lack of vocational skills).
Finding each factor weighed heavily against release, the court held a reduction would be inconsistent with the applicable policy.
Step Three—§ 3553(a) Factors: Because the court denied at step two, it did not address the statutory sentencing factors (retribution, deterrence, public safety, etc.). Under McGee, courts need not proceed to step three after a proper second-step denial.

Sali’s arguments—(1) that the district court improperly conflated extraordinary-and-compelling reasons with § 3553(a) analysis, and (2) that it ignored his post-conviction rehabilitation—were rejected. The appellate panel found no clear error in crediting Sali’s recent disciplinary record and violent history over his self-reported changes.

Impact

This decision reinforces several key points for future compassionate-release motions in the Tenth Circuit:

District courts retain broad discretion to deny relief at step two without reaching § 3553(a) if the policy statement’s safety criteria are not met.
Demonstrations of rehabilitation must overcome documented disciplinary infractions; stale in-prison conduct or self-reports will carry less weight against recent negative behavior.
Alleged sentencing disparities, including those arising from stacking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), do not automatically qualify as “extraordinary and compelling” when weighed against concrete public-safety concerns.
Litigants should present comprehensive evidence addressing each § 3142(g) factor when arguing consistency with USSG 1B1.13(a)(2).

The ruling thus sets a persuasive benchmark for how courts balance individualized hardship against community-safety imperatives under the compassionate-release statute.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate Release (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)): A statutory mechanism allowing courts to reduce a prison term for “extraordinary and compelling reasons”—such as terminal illness or family emergencies—subject to policy requirements.
Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons: Non-exclusive factors identified by courts or the Sentencing Commission (e.g., serious medical conditions, advanced age, family circumstances) that justify compassionate release.
USSG 1B1.13(a)(2): The policy statement requiring that a defendant pose no danger to community safety, measured by the pretrial release factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g): The bail-hearing statute listing factors to assess whether a defendant poses a danger, including offense seriousness, evidence weight, personal history, and risk to others.
§ 3553(a) Factors: The statutory sentencing factors—such as just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation—that courts consider when imposing or modifying a sentence.

Conclusion

United States v. Sali clarifies that even when a district court assumes the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons, it may deny compassionate-release relief at step two of the McGee framework if a defendant’s continued dangerousness under USSG 1B1.13(a)(2) and § 3142(g) is established. The Tenth Circuit’s decision underscores the high bar for relief where public-safety concerns persist and provides practitioners with a detailed roadmap for structuring future compassionate-release motions.