I have never filed a federal compassionate-release motion. What is the structure?

The two sources the motion is built on

A compassionate-release motion rests on two verified sources, quoted here and cited to their official publications. The vehicle is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the statute that lets a court reduce a sentence; the policy statement is USSG § 1B1.13, which the statute requires the reduction be consistent with. No case is cited in this section; these two sources are statute and guideline text. The only case noted anywhere on this page is the Rutherford foreclosure flagged on the (b)(6) change-in-law row below.

Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Cornell Legal Information Institute). Policy statement: USSG § 1B1.13 (United States Sentencing Commission, Amendment 814). Both control; confirm the current text before relying on any phrasing.

The four parts at a glance

A compassionate-release motion works through four parts, each stated here in one line. One of them is worked in brief below as a sample; the rest are worked in full, with the filing-structure scaffold counsel completes and the per-category record, in the Compassionate Release pack.

• 1. The administrative-exhaustion prerequisite · § 3582(c)(1)(A)

  The statutory threshold: the request to the warden and the lapse of 30 days, or full exhaustion, whichever is earlier, proved on the record before the merits are reached.

• 2. The extraordinary-and-compelling reasons · USSG § 1B1.13(b)

  The heart of the motion, organized by the § 1B1.13(b) category the case falls in: the six enumerated categories the policy statement sets, each with its own record.

• 3. The danger determination · USSG § 1B1.13(a)

  A separate finding, on the § 3142(g) factors, that the defendant is not a danger to any other person or to the community, answered affirmatively rather than left to the government.

• 4. The § 3553(a) re-weighing · § 3582(c)(1)(A)

  A re-argument of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors on the record as it stands today, so the reduction rests on the factors the statute makes the court reconsider.

The six USSG § 1B1.13(b) categories at a glance

The heart of the motion is organized by the USSG § 1B1.13(b) category the case falls in. The policy statement enumerates six. Each is named by its verbatim subheading with a one-line description; the full showing a defender makes under each, the record it is built on, and how the categories combine are worked in full in the Compassionate Release pack. The category list is the guideline’s; the sole case noted is the Rutherford foreclosure flagged on the (b)(6) change-in-law row.

• § 1B1.13(b)(1) Medical Circumstances of the Defendant

  Terminal illness, a serious condition that diminishes self-care in the facility, an unmet need for long-term or specialized care, or heightened risk from an infectious-disease outbreak.

• § 1B1.13(b)(2) Age of the Defendant

  A defendant of a threshold age experiencing serious health deterioration from the aging process who has served a threshold portion of the term.

• § 1B1.13(b)(3) Family Circumstances of the Defendant

  The loss or incapacitation of a caregiver, or of a family member the defendant would be the only available caregiver for, leaving a caregiving vacancy.

• § 1B1.13(b)(4) Victim of Abuse

  Sexual abuse or serious physical abuse suffered in custody at the hands of a correctional officer, a Bureau of Prisons employee or contractor, or another individual with custody or control over the defendant, established by the record.

• § 1B1.13(b)(5) Other Reasons

  A catch-all for a circumstance, alone or combined with a category above, that is similar in gravity to the enumerated grounds. Not a lower standard.

• § 1B1.13(b)(6) Unusually Long Sentence · FORECLOSED (see caveat)

  Foreclosed for nonretroactive changes in law after Rutherford (see the caveat below): the category reaches an unusually long sentence with a threshold portion served where a change in the law produces a gross disparity, but a nonretroactive change in law can no longer supply the extraordinary-and-compelling reason.

  FORECLOSED for nonretroactive changes in law. Per Rutherford v. United States, No. 24-820 (decided May 28, 2026), a nonretroactive change in law cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid insofar as it counsels otherwise. Any pre-Rutherford grant data for this ground is retained for historical context only; do not present § 1B1.13(b)(6) change-in-law as a live path for a nonretroactive change in law. [source]

Every category subheading above quoted from USSG § 1B1.13 (United States Sentencing Commission, Amendment 814). The policy statement and the controlling circuit law evolve; confirm the current text before relying on any category.

Sample: The administrative-exhaustion prerequisite worked in brief

To show what “worked in full” means, here is the first part, the administrative-exhaustion prerequisite, taken past the one-line description. It is the threshold every motion clears first, and the cleanest statutory element. The other three parts, the per-category showings, the filing-structure scaffold counsel completes, and the record checklist are worked to this depth and beyond in the Compassionate Release pack.

The statute’s own words condition a defendant-filed motion on “the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier”.

Exhaustion language quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Cornell Legal Information Institute). That is one part. The extraordinary-and-compelling showing, the danger determination, the § 3553(a) re-weighing, the motion structure, and the record checklist are the rest of the framework, worked in full in the Compassionate Release pack.

Get the full framework and turn it into the filed motion

The motion is only as strong as the record behind it, so the assembly runs early: the request to the warden is filed first because it starts the clock and proves exhaustion, the Bureau of Prisons medical and disciplinary records are requested early because they lag the request, the category-specific documentation is gathered against the § 1B1.13(b) ground the case falls in, and the release plan is drafted alongside the danger determination it answers. The motion is filed against a sentence already being served, so the record is built to show both the extraordinary-and-compelling ground and that a reduction is consistent with the § 3553(a) factors as they stand today.

This sample is the shape of the motion and one part worked through. The Compassionate Release research pack is the source-cited depth product built to ground it: the USSG § 1B1.13 category map with each category worked in full, the exhaustion and documentation fields, the filing-structure scaffold counsel completes, and the Sentencing Commission data the motion reads against, each carrying its source. The § 3553(a) re-weighing the reduction shares with a sentencing memo is documented in the free federal sentencing-memo framework.

Reference

For the source-cited depth product that grounds the motion, with every part worked in full, see the Compassionate Release research pack. For the § 3553(a) re-weighing the reduction shares with a sentencing memo, use the free federal sentencing-memo framework, and for the comparables brief behind the disparity argument, the Sentencing Snapshot. The exhaustion requirement is quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the categories from USSG § 1B1.13; verify the current statute, the current policy statement, and the controlling case law in your circuit before relying on any of it.