Statutory eligibility map
Separate Section 3582(c)(1)(A), amended-guideline, and other sentence-reduction paths before any case-specific screen is drafted.
The USSC FY2025 report tabulates, for the compassionate-release motions courts granted, which § 1B1.13(b) grounds those grants cited, most § 3582 motions never read them. Enter your court, judgment date, guideline posture, and asserted ground; the pack returns the national by-§ 1B1.13(b)-ground granted-reason shares (each ground's share of the granted-reason citations, with the count behind each, so a share can't hide whether it stands on a handful of grants or hundreds), the § 3553(a)/§ 3142(g) factor checklist, the statutory hook for your posture (the § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion gate or the Rule 35 boundary), Amendment 821 retroactivity screening if your client is eligible, and the gaps between what the record shows and what a strong § 3582 motion needs, wired into a filing-structure scaffold you complete. It is national aggregate context, never a district-specific or case-specific forecast. Every data row is sourced to the USSC vintage it came from.
“limited research pertaining to the processes associated with compassionate release policies, including specific eligibility requirements.”
Separate Section 3582(c)(1)(A), amended-guideline, and other sentence-reduction paths before any case-specific screen is drafted.
Use Commission-published data vintages for district, circuit, reason-category, and disposition context without turning aggregate rates into outcome forecasts.
Map the applicable policy-statement category and quoted language only when the source section and quote context are available.
Screen criminal-history amendment issues separately from compassionate-release grounds, with retroactivity report source and data vintage labels.
Keep Rule 35 substantial-assistance research distinct from court-filed compassionate-release and amended-guideline screens.
Convert the source-backed eligibility screen into a document-request checklist without asserting that any factor satisfies the standard.
Every row you receive carries its source URL, source record, data vintage, denominator caveat, and quote-context status — nothing ships until each field is complete.
Frame the § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(6) grounds as a decision tree and map counsel's asserted ground to the applicable branch; the product frames the taxonomy and never decides which ground applies. § 1B1.13(b)(6) change-in-law is caveated as foreclosed for nonretroactive changes per Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820.
Present the USSC FY2025 granted-reason rates broken down by § 1B1.13(b) ground as aggregate national context (each cell human-reviewed against Table 10); never a case-specific forecast, and the (b)(6) row is labeled Rutherford-foreclosed for nonretroactive changes in law.
Enumerate the § 3553(a)(1)-(7) sentencing factors and the § 3142(g)(1)-(4) danger factors (incorporated via § 1B1.13(a)(2)) as counsel-application prompts; the product frames each factor and never argues it — post-sentencing conduct and disparity figures stay attorney-supplied.
Present the § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion threshold as a decision checklist with the verbatim statutory clause; counsel confirms the warden-request date and whether the 30-day lapse or BOP denial applies before asserting the threshold is met — the product never asserts exhaustion is satisfied.
Each row is tied to a public source URL. Rows are held until source verification and coverage review are complete.
This research pack is in final review. Join the waitlist to be notified when checkout opens.