United States v. Kristich: Affirmation of the Three-Step Compassionate Release Framework and Appellate Waiver Principles

Introduction

United States v. Kristich, decided May 8, 2025, by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, addresses the denial of a pro se federal prisoner’s motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The appellant, Orin Kristich, had been convicted in 2018 of coercing a minor to travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(a)), and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, below the Guidelines range of 151–188 months. In 2024, he sought a reduction under the “compassionate release” statute, asserting both terminal illness and alleged abuse by a correctional officer as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons. The district court denied relief on two independent grounds: failure to prove extraordinary and compelling circumstances, and § 3553(a) factors weighing against release. Kristich appealed only the first ground, leading to this decision affirming the district court and clarifying waiver principles on appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of compassionate release. The district court had applied the three-step test from this Circuit (McGee, 992 F.3d 1035), finding (1) no evidence of terminal illness or compensable officer abuse to satisfy the Guidelines’ definition of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” (2) that relief would not align with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements, and (3) that the § 3553(a) factors—seriousness of offense, deterrence, just punishment, and avoidance of sentencing disparities—weighed firmly against early release. On appeal, Kristich challenged only the first step; he did not argue that the § 3553(a) analysis was flawed. The Court held that failure to contest all independent bases for the adverse decision constitutes waiver, and in any event found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s § 3553(a) evaluation.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• United States v. McGee (992 F.3d 1035, 10th Cir. 2021): Established the three-step test for compassionate release motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A):
  1. Identify “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”
  2. Ensure consistency with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements.
  3. Balance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in the district court’s discretion.
• United States v. Bradley (97 F.4th 1214, 10th Cir. 2024): Reaffirmed the general prohibition on modifying a federal sentence post-imposition, subject only to the narrow exceptions in § 3582, and applied McGee’s three-step framework.
• Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer (425 F.3d 836, 10th Cir. 2005): Established that pro se filings are liberally construed but a court may not become the advocate of a pro se litigant.
• Rivero v. Board of Regents (950 F.3d 754, 10th Cir. 2020): Held that when a district court rests its ruling on multiple independent grounds, an appellant who fails to challenge each ground waives review of the unchallenged one.
• Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co. (526 F.3d 641, 10th Cir. 2008): Confirmed that appellate review is limited to the record before the district court unless an exception applies.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning follows the established three-step approach:

1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons. The district court correctly applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(1)(A), requiring objective medical proof of a terminal or severely debilitating condition, and § 1B1.13(b)(4)(B), requiring official findings of officer abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. Kristich offered no evidence satisfying either.
2. Consistency with Policy Statements. Absent a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court did not need to reach this step. The policy statements remain binding in this Circuit.
3. § 3553(a) Factors. Independently, the district court concluded that the nature and circumstances of Kristich’s offense, the need for adequate deterrence and just punishment, and the aim of avoiding sentencing disparities—all core § 3553(a) considerations—militated against any reduction. Kristich’s silent concession of this ground on appeal amounted to waiver.

3. Appellate Waiver Principle

A key lesson from this decision is the reaffirmation of the waiver rule: an appellant must challenge every independent basis for an adverse decision. When the district court provides alternative grounds for denying relief, a partial assault on only one ground is insufficient to obtain appellate reversal. This enforces the principle that litigants carry the burden of presenting discrete, well-developed arguments for each point of error.

4. Impact on Future Cases

United States v. Kristich has three principal impacts:

• Clarity for Pro Se Movants. Pro se inmates seeking compassionate release must marshal evidence not only of “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances but also anticipate and pre-empt § 3553(a) objections.
• Enforcement of § 3553(a) Analysis. Even where extraordinary circumstances exist, district courts will continue to exercise broad discretion at step three, ensuring that the sentencing factors remain the ultimate touchstone.
• Waiver Discipline. The decision underscores the critical importance of addressing all alternative grounds in appellate briefing, lest an otherwise arguable error go uncorrected.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Compassionate Release (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). A limited statutory exception allowing a court to reduce an imposed federal sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, subject to policy statements and § 3553(a) factors.
• Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons. Typically serious medical conditions, advanced age, or other circumstances like verified correctional abuse. The Sentencing Commission’s policy manual defines strict evidentiary standards.
• § 3553(a) Factors. Criteria Congress instructed courts to consider in imposing or modifying a sentence, including seriousness of offense, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation needs, and consistency across similar cases.
• Appellate Waiver. A failure to brief an issue adequately on appeal ordinarily results in forfeiture of that argument, even if it was raised below.

Conclusion

United States v. Kristich serves as a textbook exposition of the three-step compassionate release framework and the necessity for appellants to challenge every independent basis for an adverse ruling. It reaffirms that district courts retain wide discretion under § 3553(a) and that pro se litigants must both present concrete evidence of “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances and fully brief any permissible objections to the sentencing factors. This decision will guide lower courts in handling compassionate release motions and caution litigants, particularly pro se inmates, about the risks of incomplete appellate briefing.