Background
Marion Quinton Brewster appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Brewster had received a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
On appeal, Brewster argued that intervening Supreme Court decisions—specifically Wooden v. United States (2022) and Erlinger v. United States (2024)—meant he would no longer qualify for sentencing under ACCA. He contended this created a disparity between his current sentence and the sentence he would likely receive if sentenced today under current law. Brewster appeared pro se in the appellate proceeding.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial. While the court acknowledged that a change in intervening case law can constitute a proper consideration under § 3582(c)(1)(A) and recognized it as “a proper consideration” based on sentencing disparity, it found no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of Brewster’s claim.
The controlling law is the Sentencing Commission’s amended policy statement, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (2025). Under § 1B1.13(b)(6), a change in the law qualifies as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for sentence reduction only if the movant has served at least 10 years in prison. Because Brewster had not satisfied this 10-year threshold, the court was correct in declining to find extraordinary and compelling reasons for reduction on this basis.
The court noted in a footnote that Brewster “may soon satisfy the 10-year requirement” and may file a new compassionate release motion before the district court in the future, expressing no opinion on his arguments at that time.
Key Takeaways
- Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), district courts may reduce sentences only if extraordinary and compelling reasons exist and the reduction is consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements.
- The 10-year imprisonment requirement in § 1B1.13(b)(6) is a mandatory prerequisite for considering changes in law as extraordinary and compelling reasons, regardless of the merits of intervening legal developments.
- Arguments that a sentence is unconstitutional based on intervening case law are properly raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not under § 3582(c)(1)(A), though sentencing disparity from legal changes may be considered under the compassionate release statute.
- Defendants near the 10-year mark may preserve compassionate release arguments by filing new motions once they satisfy the statutory threshold.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the application of the Sentencing Commission’s 10-year requirement in compassionate release motions based on legal changes. It establishes that even when intervening Supreme Court decisions may render a sentence unjustifiably disparate compared to sentences imposed today, defendants cannot obtain relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A) unless they have served at least a decade. This creates a potential temporal barrier to relief that may affect many defendants sentenced under prior legal standards.
The ruling also reinforces the distinction between collateral attacks on constitutionality (§ 2255) and sentences based on changed circumstances (§ 3582(c)(1)(A)), while leaving open the possibility that defendants may obtain relief once they cross the 10-year threshold.