Temporal Reach of Amended U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and the “Actual-Time-Served” Threshold – A Commentary on United States v. Rodney Crawley (4th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

United States v. Rodney Crawley, No. 24-6257, decided by the Fourth Circuit on 10 June 2025, is the Court’s first published opinion to apply en banc the Sentencing Commission’s sweeping Nov. 1 2023 amendments to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (“Compassionate Release Policy Statement”). The case arises from Mr. Crawley’s third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), predicated on three asserted “extraordinary and compelling reasons”:

a post-sentencing change in law (United States v. White) rendering his Virginia robbery conviction no longer a “crime of violence”;
heightened vulnerability to COVID-19; and
his record of rehabilitation.

The district court denied relief. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirms but, in doing so, erects two important precedents:

The 2023 version of § 1B1.13 governs any compassionate-release motion decided after its effective date, even if the motion was filed earlier.
§ 1B1.13(b)(6)’s “served at least 10 years” prerequisite means 10 calendar years actually spent in custody; projected good-time credits cannot be used to satisfy the threshold.

Summary of the Judgment

Judge Niemeyer, writing for a unanimous panel (Judges Gregory and Quattlebaum concurring), holds:

The amended policy statement applies retroactively to Crawley’s pending motion (§ 1B1.13 controls if the district court rules after 11/1/2023).
White (2022) renders Virginia robbery ineligible as a predicate both under ACCA and the Guidelines, creating an “unusually long sentence” and “gross disparity” for purposes of § 1B1.13(b)(6).
Crawley, however, has served only 9+ years’ actual time; good-time credits do not count. Thus he fails the 10-year gate-keeping requirement, and his motion necessarily fails the “consistent with the policy statement” clause of § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Because Crawley cannot pass the policy-statement threshold, the Court does not reach the § 3553(a) factors. The dismissal is “without prejudice,” noting Crawley may re-apply once he accrues 10 calendar years.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. White, 24 F.4th 378 (4th Cir. 2022)
– Held Virginia robbery is not a “violent felony” under ACCA’s force clause. Crawley relies on White to knock out one of his career-offender predicates. The panel extends White to § 4B1.2, concluding Virginia robbery also fails as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines despite the new enumerated-offense subsection.
United States v. Davis, 99 F.4th 647 (4th Cir. 2024)
– Foreshadowed that post-2023 § 1B1.13 would apply on remand. The panel here quotes Davis to reinforce its temporal-application holding.
United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181 (4th Cir. 2021)
– Articulated pre-amendment compassionate-release framework; now referenced to show the shift from judge-made standards to Commission-driven criteria.
United States v. Parham, 129 F.4th 280 (4th Cir. 2025), United States v. Gattis, United States v. Green
– Deal with categorical approach and definitions of robbery; relied on to analyze the scope of § 4B1.2(e)(3).

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Which Policy Statement Applies?
- Statutory text: § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires consistency with “applicable” policy statements.
- Present tense verbs in § 1B1.13 (“determines,” “may reduce”) show contemporaneous applicability.
- Practicality and uniformity: district courts need one operative yardstick; otherwise identical motions taken under submission the day before and the day after 11/1/23 would be governed by different rules.
Does White create a “gross disparity”?
- Guidelines without career-offender: 84–105 months.
- Sentence imposed: 188 months.
- An ~8-year gap easily meets the “gross disparity” concept in § 1B1.13(b)(6).
The 10-Year Requirement—Plain-Language Interpretation.
- Ordinary meaning controls absent contrary context (citing Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi, Hansen).
- “Served 10 years of the term of imprisonment” focuses on elapsed time, not administrative sentence calculations.
- Contrast with § 3624(b)(1)’s “credit toward the service of the sentence”; Congress knew how to refer to sentence-credits but the Commission chose different language.
- Policy rationale: front-load public-safety screening by ensuring defendants have spent a meaningful duration in custody before a long-sentence disparity can trigger release.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

Temporal-application precedent: Any § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion ruled on after Nov. 1 2023 must hew to the amended § 1B1.13, sharply curbing judicial discretion that flourished post-First Step Act (2018) but pre-amendment.
“Actual-time-served” clarity: Defendants cannot bootstrap good-time credits to meet § 1B1.13(b)(6). Counsel must calendar the 10-year anniversary of physical custody rather than rely on projected release dates.
Extended reach of White: The opinion effectively cements that Virginia robbery is not only off the ACCA table but also off the career-offender table, notwithstanding the newly enumerated offense language.
Strategic filings: Practitioners will time compassionate-release motions to coincide with the actual 10-year benchmark; premature filings risk denial “without prejudice.”
District-court workload: Judges receive an administrable checklist—if § 1B1.13’s categorical prerequisites are unmet, the court may deny without full § 3553(a) analysis, streamlining dockets.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Compassionate Release (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)) – A mechanism allowing sentence reduction for “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” triggered either by BOP request or (since the First Step Act) by the inmate after exhausting administrative remedies.
Career-Offender Enhancement (§ 4B1.1) – Elevates the Guideline range when a defendant aged ≥18 has two prior qualifying felonies (violent or drug), substantially increasing the sentence.
ACCA vs. Guidelines “Force Clause” – Both statutes contain near-identical text requiring “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” but ACCA is statutory and the Guidelines are advisory; courts often interpret them in tandem under the categorical approach.
Categorical Approach – Courts compare the statutory elements of the prior offense to the generic definition, ignoring the defendant’s actual conduct.
Good-Time Credits (§ 3624(b)) – Up to 54 days per year that the BOP may deduct from the sentence after it is served, accelerating release but not shortening the historical time already spent in custody.

Conclusion

United States v. Crawley delivers two doctrinally rich holdings: (1) the 2023 amendments to § 1B1.13 govern all § 3582(c)(1)(A) decisions rendered after their effective date, ensuring nationwide uniformity; and (2) the 10-year threshold in § 1B1.13(b)(6) means 10 actual calendar years behind bars, immune to the accounting alchemy of good-time credits. While Crawley leaves prison doors closed for the moment, the opinion paves a clearer procedural path for future defendants, guides district courts on temporal applicability, and fortifies the Fourth Circuit’s post-White jurisprudence disqualifying Virginia robbery as a “crime of violence.” Taken together, the decision harmonises statutory text, guideline policy, and administrative practice, marking a significant waypoint in compassionate-release jurisprudence.