United States v. McCoy: The Tenth Circuit Clarifies “Incapacitation” and Cumulative-Circumstance Analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

Introduction

United States v. McCoy, No. 25-6039 (10th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025), is the latest compassionate-release decision from the Tenth Circuit. Though issued as a non-precedential “Order and Judgment,” it is citable for its persuasive value and, in practical terms, provides two important clarifications: (1) what “incapacitation” means in the family-circumstances prong of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3), and (2) how district courts should evaluate a defendant’s combination of asserted hardships when deciding whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because applications for compassionate release have soared after the First Step Act of 2018 shifted the initial filing power to prisoners themselves, McCoy’s guidance will shape how future movants—and district courts—frame cumulative-circumstance arguments, particularly those involving COVID-19 lockdown conditions and partial caregiver roles.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of compassionate release.
• It held that none of McCoy’s asserted reasons—his mother’s declining health, harsh COVID-19 conditions, or rehabilitation—singly or cumulatively rose to the level of “extraordinary and compelling.”
• The panel adopted the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Program Statement 5050.50 definition of “incapacitation” (total inability to self-care or confinement to bed/chair) when evaluating caregiver requests, finding McCoy’s mother did not qualify.
• The Court reiterated that rehabilitation alone is legally insufficient, echoing 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), but may be considered in combination with other factors.
• McCoy’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal was denied for lack of a non-frivolous argument.

Detailed Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2021) – Established the modern three-step framework after the First Step Act: (1) extraordinary & compelling reasons; (2) consistency with Sentencing-Commission policy; (3) § 3553(a) factors. McCoy applies step one only, ending the analysis once that prong fails—as permitted by McGee.
2. United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2021) – Authorized district courts to deny compassionate release at any single step. McCoy relies on this authority to stop after finding no extraordinary & compelling reasons.
3. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027 (10th Cir. 2021) – Supplies the abuse-of-discretion standard. McCoy quotes Hemmelgarn for the “incorrect conclusion of law or clearly erroneous fact” test.
4. Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011) – Cited for the premise that sentence modification is limited by § 3582(c).
5. BOP Program Statement 5050.50 (Jan. 17, 2019) – Although not binding, the Court treats the BOP’s definition of “incapacitation” as persuasive.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Family Circumstances.   • Guideline § 1B1.13(b)(3)(C) requires parental “incapacitation” and the movant being the “only available caregiver.”   • The panel used the BOP’s stringent definition (total inability to self-care or cognitive deficit equivalent), concluding that merely needing “24-hour help” but still driving and living independently is insufficient.   • Alternate caregivers (neighbor, friend, potential facility) defeated exclusivity.

2. COVID-19 Conditions.   • The Court placed pandemic hardships under § 1B1.13(b)(5)’s “catch-all” but stressed that they must be “similar in gravity” to terminal illness or severe abuse.   • Absent medical documentation of lasting harm, the claimed mental-health impact did not satisfy this threshold.

3. Rehabilitation.   • Per § 994(t) of Title 28 and Guideline commentary, rehabilitation “alone” is barred.   • McCoy tried to combine it with the other factors; the panel recognized the permissible strategy but found the aggregate still fell short.

4. Cumulative-Circumstance Holding.   • The decision expressly confirms that courts may perform a holistic inquiry but are not compelled to grant relief unless the sum of circumstances matches the severity of enumerated categories.   • This addresses the growing trend of “kitchen-sink” motions post-COVID-19.

C. Impact on Future Litigation

• Caregiver Motions Narrowed – By embracing the BOP definition, the Tenth Circuit signals that partial or moderate parental disability will rarely suffice. Litigants will need comprehensive medical evidence showing near-total incapacity and a documented absence of alternative care.
• COVID-19 Claims De-Emphasised – The decision treats pandemic lockdown hardships as presumptively non-extraordinary unless linked to verifiable, lasting medical or psychological injury.
• Strategic Filings – Defense counsel must now quantify how multiple factors interlock to equal the gravity of terminal illness or severe abuse; mere aggregation will not persuade courts.
• Guidance for District Courts – McCoy reaffirms that a court may end the analysis at step one, conserving judicial resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) – Often called “compassionate release,” this statute lets prisoners ask a judge to shorten their sentence for extraordinary reasons—after first requesting relief from the Bureau of Prisons.
• U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 – The Sentencing Commission’s policy statement that lists examples of qualifying reasons (terminal illness, incapacitated caregiver, etc.). Although non-binding after the First Step Act, most courts still use it as a guide.
• BOP Program Statements – Internal agency manuals that define terms like “incapacitation.” Courts rely on them for practical, medical thresholds.
• In Forma Pauperis (IFP) – Permission to litigate without paying filing fees. The appellant must show a non-frivolous issue.
• Abuse of Discretion – The standard of review where an appellate court overturns a lower court only if its decision was clearly unreasonable or based on legal/factual error.

Conclusion

United States v. McCoy reinforces the Tenth Circuit’s cautious approach to compassionate-release motions, clarifying that: (1) “incapacitation” of a parent requires near-total inability to self-care as defined by BOP Program Statement 5050.50; and (2) while defendants may combine several lesser hardships, the aggregate must still rival the gravity of enumerated extraordinary circumstances. By denying McCoy’s appeal and his IFP request, the Court sets a persuasive marker for future litigants and district courts within and beyond the Tenth Circuit. The ruling underscores the importance of robust medical documentation, proof of caregiver exclusivity, and concrete evidence of extreme prison conditions when seeking early release under § 3582(c)(1)(A).