Introduction

In United States v. Fraser, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of a federal prisoner’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The appeal raised three clusters of issues common to post-2023 compassionate-release litigation:

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including reliance on the fact that the defendant had already received a downward-variant sentence at the original sentencing;
• Whether the court erred by declining to credit the defendant’s policy disagreement with the Guidelines’ treatment of actual (pure) methamphetamine and by not giving dispositive weight to rehabilitation and family support; and
• Whether there were procedural errors: (a) timeliness of the government’s response over the Thanksgiving holiday, and (b) denial of an opportunity to reply where the local rules require leave of court.

The case is noteworthy for two practical propositions. First, even where a defendant makes a “plausible” showing of extraordinary and compelling family circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3), the district court retains broad discretion to deny relief on § 3553(a) grounds, and may consider a prior downward variance as part of the “backdrop” in weighing sentence sufficiency. Second, procedural skirmishes matter: Rule 45’s holiday-extension rule controlled the response deadline, and Western District of Oklahoma local rules require leave to file a reply in criminal motions practice.

Summary of the Opinion

The Tenth Circuit, applying abuse-of-discretion review, affirmed the district court’s order denying compassionate release. Although the district court rejected some of the defendant’s asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons (his personal medical issues and a policy disagreement with methamphetamine Guidelines), it acknowledged that his father’s deteriorating health presented a “plausible argument” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3) (family circumstances). Nevertheless, the court denied relief based on the § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing:

• Fraser’s lengthy criminal record, including violent and drug convictions;
• A lengthy history of substance abuse and mental-health concerns;
• The fact he had served less than half of his sentence; and
• That the 120-month sentence was already a downward variance from the 151–188 month Guidelines range.

On appeal, the panel held it was not an abuse of discretion to consider the original downward variance as part of the § 3553(a) “backdrop” showing why a further reduction would not satisfy the statute’s purposes—seriousness, just punishment, deterrence, and protection of the public. The panel also confirmed that a district court is not required to adopt policy-based criticisms of the methamphetamine Guidelines simply because other judges have done so, and it is not required to reduce a sentence based on post-sentencing rehabilitation (Pepper v. United States allows but does not mandate consideration of such evidence).

Addressing procedure, the panel rejected two claims: (1) the government’s response was timely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a)(1)(C) because the 21-day deadline fell over the Thanksgiving holiday and the following weekend; and (2) the defendant had no automatic right to a reply brief under W.D. Okla. Crim. R. 12.1(c), and he did not seek leave to file one despite notifying the court he had not received the government’s response.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

• United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027 (10th Cir. 2021) and United States v. Battle, 706 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2013): These decisions frame the abuse-of-discretion standard: the appellate court will reverse only for an incorrect legal conclusion or a clearly erroneous factual finding. Hemmelgarn also notes the exhaustion requirement (which the government conceded here).
• United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021), quoting United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021): McGee describes the three prerequisites for § 3582(c)(1)(A) relief—(1) extraordinary and compelling reasons, (2) consistency with applicable policy statements, and (3) § 3553(a) support—and confirms a court may deny at any prong without addressing the others. The district court followed this approach by resolving the motion on the § 3553(a) factors after assuming, in part, a plausible extraordinary reason.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3) (extraordinary and compelling family circumstances): After the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 amendments, § 1B1.13 applies to defendant-filed motions. The district court recognized that a parent’s deteriorating health can fall within “family circumstances,” yet denied relief based on § 3553(a).
• United States v. Wilson, No. 20-1324, 2021 WL 4859690 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 2021) (unpublished) and United States v. Bischof, No. 22-6140, 2023 WL 1788053 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2023) (unpublished): These unpublished decisions are cited for the proposition that district courts act within their discretion when they view further reductions as “drastic” or unwarranted in light of § 3553(a), particularly where an initial sentence already reflects a substantial reduction. Fraser relies on this logic to treat the prior downward variance as a legitimate “backdrop” in the § 3553(a) analysis.
• United States v. Velasquez-Aguilera, 842 F. App’x 286 (10th Cir. 2021): The Tenth Circuit reiterated that sentencing courts may—but are not required to—deviate from Guidelines based on policy disagreements. The panel used this to reject Fraser’s contention that the court erred by not adopting the policy critique of the actual/pure methamphetamine Guidelines.
• Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011): Pepper allows consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation but does not compel a reduction. The panel relied on Pepper and its footnote 17 to reject the argument that rehabilitation had to be given dispositive weight at the compassionate-release stage.
• United States v. Lawless, 979 F.3d 849 (10th Cir. 2020): Appellate courts do not reweigh § 3553(a) factors; they review for abuse of discretion. This foreclosed Fraser’s invitation to balance his criminal history against rehabilitation and family support differently.
• United States v. Pereda, No. 18-cr-00228, 2019 WL 463027 (D. Colo. Feb. 6, 2019) (unpublished): Cited to exemplify district-court criticism of methamphetamine purity ratios and to show that disagreement exists in the district courts. But Fraser confirms such disagreement is not obligatory.
• United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2019): The court liberally construes pro se filings but does not act as an advocate. This frames how the panel addressed Fraser’s arguments.
• United States v. Hammons, No. 22-6044, 2022 WL 3681254 (10th Cir. Aug. 25, 2022) (unpublished) and W.D. Okla. Crim. R. 12.1(c): Support the procedural holding that reply briefs require leave in the Western District of Oklahoma; Fraser did not seek such leave.
• Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a)(1)(C): Provides the computation rule that extended the government’s deadline to the next business day after the Thanksgiving court closure. The government’s response was timely.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeds in three logical steps.

1. Framework and standard of review: Applying Hemmelgarn and McGee, the panel reviewed for abuse of discretion and accepted that a district court may deny relief at any step of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry. The district court considered both the “extraordinary and compelling” prong and, dispositively, the § 3553(a) prong. Even assuming a plausible family-circumstances ground under § 1B1.13(b)(3) (father’s health), the court concluded that the § 3553(a) purposes—seriousness, just punishment, deterrence, and public protection—were not satisfied by early release.
2. Substantive § 3553(a) assessment: The district court’s emphasis on Fraser’s criminal record (including violent and drug offenses), history of substance abuse and mental-health concerns, and the fact he had served less than half of his sentence supported denial. The court also referenced that Fraser’s 120-month sentence was already a downward variance from a 151–188 month range. The panel held it was permissible to consider the prior downward variance as a “backdrop” in assessing whether additional reduction would undermine § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(C).
   • Policy disagreement with the methamphetamine Guidelines: Although some judges have criticized the Guidelines’ treatment of actual/pure methamphetamine (e.g., Pereda), the district court’s decision to be “unpersuaded” by those critiques was a discretionary choice the Tenth Circuit would not disturb (Velasquez-Aguilera).
   • Rehabilitation and family support: Pepper allows consideration of rehabilitation but does not require sentence reduction. The appellate court declined to reweigh these factors against criminal history and time-served considerations (Lawless).
   • Acceptance of responsibility: To the extent Fraser argued the court improperly considered his prior acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, the record did not show the court relied on it; the district court merely recounted the original sentencing as background.
3. Procedural rulings: There were no procedural errors.
   • Timeliness: The government’s December 2 filing was timely under Rule 45 because the 21st day fell on Thanksgiving (when the court was closed) and the following weekend; the time extended to Monday, the next business day.
   • Reply brief: The Western District of Oklahoma permits replies in criminal motions only with leave of court (W.D. Okla. Crim. R. 12.1(c)). Although Fraser notified the court he had not received the government’s response, he did not seek leave to reply. The panel found no procedural deprivation.

Impact and Practical Implications

Fraser, though nonprecedential, will likely be cited for its persuasive value in three recurring areas of compassionate-release litigation:

• Weight of § 3553(a) and prior downward variances: The decision confirms district courts may treat an existing downward variance as part of the § 3553(a) “backdrop” when deciding whether further reduction would still reflect offense seriousness, provide just punishment, deter, and protect the public. Defendants who already received substantial below-Guidelines sentences face a steeper climb on a later compassionate-release motion, especially if little of the sentence has been served.
• Policy disagreements with the methamphetamine Guidelines: Litigants can press policy critiques, but district courts are not obliged to adopt them. Counsel should consider raising such policy arguments at the original sentencing (when a variance might have the greatest effect) and frame any renewed request under § 3582(c)(1)(A) as one factor among many, not a dispositive legal flaw in the Guidelines.
• Family-circumstances claims under § 1B1.13(b)(3): The 2023 amendments make family caregiving a recognized extraordinary and compelling reason in appropriate cases (for example, caregiving for an incapacitated parent where the defendant is the only available caregiver). Fraser illustrates that even a plausible showing on this prong can be outweighed by § 3553(a) considerations. A robust release plan that addresses public safety, supervision, treatment, housing, and employment will be critical to satisfy § 3553(a).
• Procedural rigor: Filing-deadline computation under Rule 45, especially around holidays, can be outcome-determinative. And in districts like W.D. Okla., a reply is not a matter of right—practitioners must promptly seek leave and document any service failures. Pro se litigants should be particularly mindful of local rules and should request leave if they wish to reply.
• Appellate deference: Abuse-of-discretion review is highly deferential. Successful appeals typically require showing that the district court misapplied the law or relied on clearly erroneous facts—not just that reasonable judges could weigh § 3553(a) factors differently.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Compassionate Release (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)): A court may reduce a sentence if three conditions are satisfied: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” (or, after the 2023 amendments, qualifying reasons identified by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13); (2) the reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement; and (3) the § 3553(a) sentencing factors support the reduction. Courts can deny relief if any one condition is not met.
• § 3553(a) Factors: These include the seriousness of the offense, respect for law, just punishment, deterrence, public protection, the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities, among others. In compassionate-release cases, courts often emphasize public-safety risk, deterrence, and how much of the sentence has been served.
• Downward Variance vs. Acceptance of Responsibility: A “variance” is a sentence outside the advisory Guideline range based on § 3553(a). “Acceptance of responsibility” is a Guidelines reduction (typically two or three offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1) for timely acceptance of guilt. Fraser confirms that a court may consider a prior variance when deciding whether further reduction is compatible with § 3553(a); it did not rely on the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
• Policy Disagreement with Guidelines: Sentencing courts may vary based on policy disagreements with the Guidelines (e.g., concerns about methamphetamine purity ratios), but they are not required to do so. An appellate court will not find abuse of discretion merely because the district court adhered to the Guidelines’ policy choice.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2023 amendments): The policy statement now expressly applies to motions filed by defendants and lists categories of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” including certain family caregiving circumstances. However, satisfying § 1B1.13 does not guarantee release; § 3553(a) still governs whether a reduction is appropriate.
• Abuse-of-Discretion Review: The appellate court asks whether the district court made a legal error or clearly erroneous factual finding. It does not reweigh § 3553(a) factors simply because it might have ruled differently.
• Rule 45 Time Computation: If a filing deadline falls on a weekend or legal holiday (or a day when the court is closed), the deadline rolls to the next business day.
• Local Rules on Replies (W.D. Okla. Crim. R. 12.1(c)): Replies in criminal motions are permitted only with leave of court. A party who has not received an opponent’s brief should alert the court and ask for leave and appropriate relief (e.g., a new reply deadline).
• Persuasive vs. Binding Authority: This order and judgment is nonprecedential in the Tenth Circuit (except under law-of-the-case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel), but it may be cited for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).

Conclusion

United States v. Fraser reinforces a core feature of post-2023 compassionate-release practice: even when a defendant raises plausible “extraordinary and compelling” reasons—such as caregiving for a parent under § 1B1.13(b)(3)—the § 3553(a) factors remain decisive and will often be dispositive. District courts may treat an original downward variance as a powerful “backdrop” showing why further reductions would disserve seriousness, just punishment, deterrence, and public safety. The decision also clarifies two procedural points with practical resonance: Rule 45’s holiday-extension rule controls filing deadlines, and W.D. Okla. requires leave to file replies in criminal motions.

For litigants, the takeaways are clear. Build a comprehensive § 3553(a) record that addresses public safety, deterrence, time served, and a detailed release plan; do not rely on family circumstances or rehabilitation alone. Recognize that policy critiques of the methamphetamine Guidelines are discretionary and most effective if developed at the original sentencing. And mind the procedural details—deadlines, service, and local rules—because they can foreclose arguments before the merits are ever reached.