Standards for Counsel Appointment and §3582(c)(1)(A) Compassionate Release in the Tenth Circuit: United States v. Read-Forbes

Introduction

This commentary examines the Tenth Circuit’s June 2, 2025 decision in United States v. Read-Forbes, No. 25-3021 (10th Cir.), which addresses two key issues in the context of a pro se compassionate-release motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A): (1) the district court’s discretion to appoint new counsel, and (2) the proper application of the sentencing factors in denying compassionate release. Defendant-appellant Mendy Read-Forbes, serving a 240-month sentence for conspiracy to commit money laundering, moved for compassionate release based on untreated medical conditions, a prior sexual assault in custody, and the length of her sentence. The district court denied both her request for new counsel and the release motion, and the government appeal waiver barred her direct challenge to her original sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court. First, it held that there is no constitutional right to counsel in § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceedings and that appointment of new counsel was not required because Read-Forbes’s filings—though pro se—were neither so complex nor so unsupported as to produce fundamental unfairness. Second, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying compassionate release. In particular, it found that the district court properly:

Considered Read-Forbes’s asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons (medical issues and sexual assault) when evaluating the § 3553(a) factors;
Analyzed the seven § 3553(a) factors in light of the seriousness of the offense, deterrence needs, and public safety;
Reasonably determined that a reduction to time served would be inconsistent with sentencing objectives and that Read-Forbes had disciplinary infractions in custody.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The panel relied principally on the following Tenth Circuit authorities:

McCarthy v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836 (10th Cir. 1985): Established that appointment of counsel in civil cases is discretionary and required only in “extreme cases” where pro se status causes fundamental unfairness.
United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027 (10th Cir. 2021): Held that a district court’s compassionate-release decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion and that reliance on incorrect legal conclusions or clearly erroneous facts is an abuse.
United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021): Clarified the three prerequisites for compassionate release—extraordinary and compelling reasons, consistency with Sentencing Commission policy statements, and § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932 (10th Cir. 2021): Emphasized that district courts must consider the facts underlying extraordinary and compelling reasons when conducting the § 3553(a) analysis.
Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir. 1991): Outlined factors for deciding whether to appoint counsel in civil habeas and civil rights cases, applied by analogy here.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in two parts:

a. Appointment of Counsel

– Constitutional Basis: No Sixth Amendment right to counsel in post-sentencing § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions. – Discretionary Factors (Williams v. Meese): (1) Merits of the claims, (2) complexity of factual issues, (3) pro se litigant’s ability, (4) complexity of legal arguments. – Application: The district court found Read-Forbes, a law-degree holder, capable of presenting her claims; her issues were neither novel nor fact-intensive. Lack of counsel did not produce fundamental unfairness.

b. Compassionate Release (§ 3582(c)(1)(A))

The court reaffirmed the three-step framework:

Extraordinary and compelling reasons exist (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) & U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1), (4), (5)).
Consistency with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement.
Assessment of the § 3553(a) factors: (1) nature/seriousness of offense, (2) deterrence, (3) public protection, (4) sentencing range, (5) policy statements, (6) unwarranted disparities, (7) restitution.

The district court assumed arguendo that Read-Forbes’s circumstances might be “extraordinary and compelling” but found the § 3553(a) factors weighed heavily against release:

Severity of her money-laundering conspiracy and the statutory maximum sentence imposed;
Need for deterrence and public safety, given her pretrial misconduct (identity theft of a co-worker) and BOP disciplinary infractions;
No evidence of reduced danger to the community sufficient to override these concerns.

3. Impact

This decision provides persuasive guidance in three respects:

Counsel Appointment Standard: Reinforces that pro se defendants in § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceedings have no entitlement to appointed counsel absent special circumstances of complexity or unfairness.
§ 3553(a) Scrutiny: Confirms that district courts must explicitly consider extraordinary and compelling facts in their § 3553(a) analysis but may still deny relief when sentencing objectives demand. A clear statement that denial based on § 3553(a) obviates detailed findings on extraordinary reasons.
Consistency in Circuit Practice: Aligns Tenth Circuit practice with other circuits (e.g., Fourth, Eleventh) as to the discretion afforded district judges in both counsel decisions and compassionate-release determinations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate Release (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)): A narrow statutory exception allowing a sentence reduction post-judgment for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, subject to policy statements and sentencing factors.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13: The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” (medical conditions, abuse in custody, or “catchall” circumstances).
§ 3553(a) Factors: Seven considerations guiding sentencing decisions, including offense gravity, deterrence, public protection, and avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities.
Abuse of Discretion: A deferential appellate standard; a district court abuses its discretion only if it relies on an incorrect legal premise, makes clearly erroneous factual findings, or issues a decision that is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Pro Se: When a party represents herself without an attorney. Courts “liberally construe” pro se filings but do not act as advocates.

Conclusion

United States v. Read-Forbes clarifies two critical points in compassionate-release litigation within the Tenth Circuit. First, there is no right to appointed counsel in § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceedings unless extraordinary circumstances make representation essential to fairness. Second, even where “extraordinary and compelling” reasons arguably exist, a district court may properly deny relief if the § 3553(a) factors—seriousness of the offense, deterrence, and risk to the public—weigh against a sentence reduction. The decision affirms the broad discretion district judges possess in post-sentencing relief and provides a structured blueprint for evaluating both counsel requests and compassionate-release motions.