Archive reference note: parts of this topic refer to earlier research records, now listed under open research questions.
18 U.S.C. § 3582 — Sentence-Modification Remedy Router
Verification boundary
This module verifies the nationwide organization of the sentence-modification mechanisms in § 3582(c), Rules 35 and 36, current Guidelines §§ 1B1.10 and 1B1.13, and the controlling Supreme Court boundaries. It does not decide an individual motion, resolve circuit-specific issue-exhaustion or appellate-review questions, calculate a particular amended range, or validate the legacy 669-line procedural framework as a whole.
Start with the source of authority
An imposed term of imprisonment is final and may be modified only through the three doors in § 3582(c): subsection (c)(1)(A), subsection (c)(1)(B), or subsection (c)(2). Each door has different eligibility, procedure, and limits. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)–(c)
Subsections (a) and (b) govern imposition and finality, subsection (d) imposes specified Bureau of Prisons notice and assistance duties, and subsection (e) concerns certain nonassociation orders. None is an additional sentence-reduction door. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), (b), (d), (e)
Claims about conviction validity, ordinary sentencing error outside Rule 35(a), Bureau of Prisons computation or execution, and placement are not interchangeable with § 3582(c) motions. A conviction-validity claim belongs in direct review or § 2255 as applicable; an execution claim may require the administrative-remedy and § 2241 framework; and a placement request is not itself a reduction of the imposed prison term.
Fernandez holds that the supposed invalidity of a conviction cannot constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A); § 2255 is Congress's designated collateral vehicle for a federal prisoner attacking conviction validity. Fernandez v. United States, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. 8–10 (2026)
Rule 35, Rule 36, and § 3582(c)(1)(B)
Rule 35(a) authorizes the sentencing court to correct an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error within 14 days after sentencing; Rule 35(c) defines “sentencing” as the oral announcement of the sentence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), (c)
Rule 35(b) requires a government motion based on substantial assistance. A motion within one year is governed by Rule 35(b)(1); a later motion must fit one of Rule 35(b)(2)'s three information-timing categories. The court may consider presentence assistance and may reduce below a statutory minimum. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)
Rule 36 separately permits correction at any time of a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or an error arising from oversight or omission. It does not authorize a substantive resentencing and is not a § 3582(c) reduction door. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36
Section 3582(c)(1)(B) is a connector: it permits modification only to the extent Rule 35 or another statute expressly permits. The outside rule or statute supplies the movant, deadline, eligibility, scope, and discretionary limits. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B)
The separately verified First Step Act § 404 module is one example of an express statutory modification authority using the (c)(1)(B) connector. Its covered-offense and prior-order rules cannot be borrowed into other § 3582 tracks.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)
Filing gate and statutory decision sequence
The Bureau of Prisons Director may move under § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant may move after fully exhausting administrative appeal of the Bureau's failure to file, or after 30 days from the warden's receipt of the defendant's request, whichever occurs first. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
The statute does not answer every issue-exhaustion, waiver, or emergency question that can arise in litigation. Those questions require controlling circuit authority and the actual request, receipt date, response, and motion.
For the ordinary compassionate-release path, the court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors and find an extraordinary and compelling reason, consistency with the applicable Commission policy statement, and the policy statement's no-danger requirement. The court may reduce the prison term and may substitute probation or supervised release, with conditions, for no longer than the unserved portion. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a) (2025)
The separate age-70 route requires age 70 or older, at least 30 years served on a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), and a Bureau of Prisons determination that the defendant is not dangerous. It is not the ordinary age-based circumstance in § 1B1.13(b)(2). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii)
Current policy statement and controlling limits
The current policy statement lists medical circumstances, age, family circumstances, abuse while in custody, and other circumstances similar in gravity in § 1B1.13(b)(1) through (5). The exact elements of the selected category must be proved; sympathy or seriousness alone is not a category. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)–(5) (2025)
Rehabilitation cannot by itself establish an extraordinary and compelling reason, although it may be considered in combination with other circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d) (2025)
The current policy statement requires a finding that the defendant is not a danger to another person or the community under the § 3142(g) factors. This policy-statement finding is separate from extraordinary-and-compelling eligibility. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a)(2) (2025)
Even when the eligibility and policy-statement requirements are satisfied, the court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors and retains discretion to deny or limit the reduction. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
Rutherford holds that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the resulting disparity cannot serve as an extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Combining that disparity with other nonqualifying considerations does not convert it into a qualifying eligibility reason. Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. 8–17 (2026)
Section 1B1.13(b)(6) remains printed in the 2025 Guidelines Manual, but it cannot be used to create eligibility from the kind of deliberately nonretroactive sentencing change barred by Rutherford. The Supreme Court's statutory holding controls over inconsistent guideline application. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) (2025); Rutherford, slip op. 2, 15–17
Section 1B1.13(c), as presently printed, permits a legal change to inform the extent of a reduction after some independent extraordinary and compelling reason has established eligibility. Rutherford resolved eligibility and did not supply a general license to use nonretroactive changes at that later step; later controlling decisions and the precise requested use must be checked. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(c) (2025); Rutherford, slip op. 17
Section 3582(c)(2)
Section 3582(c)(2) applies to a defendant sentenced based on a sentencing range that the Commission later lowered under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), when a reduction is consistent with applicable Commission policy. The defendant or Bureau Director may move, and the court may act on its own motion; the compassionate-release warden-request gate does not apply. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
Eligibility requires an amendment listed in current § 1B1.10(d) and an actual lowering of the defendant's applicable guideline range. An amendment's effective date or favorable treatment at new sentencings does not by itself make it retroactive under § 3582(c)(2). U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), (d) (2025)
A Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does not automatically defeat § 3582(c)(2) eligibility. Under Hughes, the sentence is based on the guideline range when that range was part of the framework the court relied on in imposing sentence or accepting the agreement. Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675, 685–91 (2018)
Dillon establishes a two-step inquiry. First, the court determines whether and to what extent § 1B1.10 authorizes a reduction; second, if a reduction is authorized, the court considers applicable § 3553(a) factors and decides whether the authorized reduction is warranted. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010)
At step one, the court substitutes only the listed amendment and leaves all other guideline-application decisions unaffected. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding does not impose a new sentence in the usual sense and is not a plenary resentencing. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1) (2025); Dillon, 560 U.S. at 825–27, 831
The ordinary § 1B1.10 floor is the bottom of the amended guideline range. A qualifying original substantial-assistance reduction permits a comparably lower term, and no reduction may be below time already served. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2) (2025)
At the discretionary step, the court considers applicable § 3553(a) factors; the policy commentary also directs consideration of public safety and permits consideration of post-sentencing conduct. Eligibility therefore does not guarantee any reduction. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B) (2025); Dillon, 560 U.S. at 827
Section 1B1.10(e) contains amendment-specific delayed-effective-date provisions. The dates presently printed for Amendments 782 and 821 have passed; do not convert those historical dates into a generic waiting period for every listed amendment.
After an order
For a defendant's criminal appeal, Rule 4(b)(1)(A) ordinarily requires a notice of appeal within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order being appealed, and Rule 3(a)(1) requires filing with the district clerk. The actual order, entry date, party, and any deadline-affecting event must be checked. Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1), 4(b)(1)(A)
Rule 4(c) governs timely inmate filing, and Rule 4(b)(4) allows the district court, upon good cause or excusable neglect, to extend the criminal appeal period by no more than 30 days from the original deadline. The possible extension is not part of the ordinary filing period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), (c)
Decision path
flowchart TD
A["Requested change to a federal prison term"] --> B{"Attack conviction or original sentence validity?"}
B -->|"Yes"| C["Direct review or § 2255; Fernandez bars compassionate-release substitution"]
B -->|"No"| D{"Clerical record error only?"}
D -->|"Yes"| E["Rule 36; not substantive modification"]
D -->|"No"| F{"Rule 35(a) clear error within 14 days of oral sentence?"}
F -->|"Yes"| G["Rule 35(a) through § 3582(c)(1)(B)"]
F -->|"No"| H{"Government Rule 35(b) substantial-assistance motion?"}
H -->|"Yes"| I["Apply Rule 35(b)'s timing and scope"]
H -->|"No"| J{"Another statute expressly authorizes modification?"}
J -->|"Yes"| K["Use that statute through § 3582(c)(1)(B)"]
J -->|"No"| L{"Listed retroactive amendment lowers actual range?"}
L -->|"Yes"| M["§ 3582(c)(2): Dillon step one, then discretionary step two"]
L -->|"No"| N{"§ 3582(c)(1)(A) statutory and policy gates met?"}
N -->|"Yes"| O["Consider no-danger rule and § 3553(a); relief remains discretionary"]
N -->|"No"| P["No § 3582(c) route established by this sequence"]
Record-first checklist
- Identify the exact relief requested: vacatur, clerical correction, Rule 35 correction, substantial-assistance reduction, express statutory modification, compassionate release, retroactive-guideline reduction, or execution relief.
- Obtain the oral-sentencing transcript, judgment, statement of reasons, plea agreement, presentence report where lawfully available, guideline calculation, amendment, prior reduction orders, and current docket.
- For (c)(1)(A), preserve the request, warden-receipt proof, response, administrative appeals, current evidence, release plan, dangerousness evidence, and § 3553(a) record.
- For (c)(2), identify the amendment number, verify current § 1B1.10(d) listing, reconstruct the actual original guideline framework, substitute only the amendment, and apply every floor and timing rule.
- For an appeal, calendar from the actual entry date under current Rule 4 and verify circuit and district requirements rather than relying on a chart.
Matters not yet verified in this module
- Circuit-specific treatment of issue exhaustion, waiver or forfeiture of the (c)(1)(A) filing gate, emergency requests, hearings, appointment, burdens, reasons, reconsideration, and standards of review.
- The application of Rutherford and § 1B1.13(c) to a particular asserted legal change after an independently valid eligibility reason.
- Individual § 1B1.13 category facts, dangerousness, § 3553(a), amendment eligibility, guideline calculations, mandatory-minimum interactions, substantial-assistance comparisons, and relief amount.
- Whether a particular order is appealable, who may appeal, the correct deadline, or whether an inmate filing, extension, or local rule applies.
- The detailed BOP request-content regulation, BOP program statement, local forms, sealing rules, and evidence sufficiency.
Those questions remain open in data/coverage_matrix.yaml. The legacy prose file remains a research inventory rather than a validated authority.
Claim-level source records
CLM-3582-001 · verified_current
An imposed term of imprisonment is final and may be modified only through the three doors in § 3582(c): subsection (c)(1)(A), subsection (c)(1)(B), or subsection (c)(2). Each door has different eligibility, procedure, and limits.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- sentence_modification_routing
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Claims outside these doors require an independently authorized remedy.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-002 · verified_current
Subsections (a) and (b) govern imposition and finality, subsection (d) imposes specified Bureau of Prisons notice and assistance duties, and subsection (e) concerns certain nonassociation orders. None is an additional sentence-reduction door.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- statutory_structure
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- This claim does not adjudicate performance of any Bureau duty.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-003 · verified_current
*Fernandez* holds that the supposed invalidity of a conviction cannot constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A); § 2255 is Congress's designated collateral vehicle for a federal prisoner attacking conviction validity.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_eligibility
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- A fact may have a distinct permissible relevance that does not ask the § 3582 court to adjudicate conviction validity.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fernandez v. United States, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
CLM-3582-004 · verified_current
Rule 35(a) authorizes the sentencing court to correct an arithmetical, technical, or other clear error within 14 days after sentencing; Rule 35(c) defines “sentencing” as the oral announcement of the sentence.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- rule_35_a_correction
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Whether a particular error is within Rule 35(a) requires the sentencing record.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 36
CLM-3582-005 · verified_current
Rule 35(b) requires a government motion based on substantial assistance. A motion within one year is governed by Rule 35(b)(1); a later motion must fit one of Rule 35(b)(2)'s three information-timing categories. The court may consider presentence assistance and may reduce below a statutory minimum.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- rule_35_b_reduction
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Government-motion review and plea-agreement enforcement require separate authority and facts.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 36
CLM-3582-006 · verified_current
Rule 36 separately permits correction at any time of a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or an error arising from oversight or omission. It does not authorize a substantive resentencing and is not a § 3582(c) reduction door.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- clerical_correction
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The oral and written record must be compared to classify the asserted error.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 and 36
CLM-3582-007 · verified_current
Section 3582(c)(1)(B) is a connector: it permits modification only to the extent Rule 35 or another statute expressly permits. The outside rule or statute supplies the movant, deadline, eligibility, scope, and discretionary limits.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- sentence_modification_vehicle
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Section 3582(c)(1)(B) alone does not create substantive eligibility.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-008 · verified_current
The Bureau of Prisons Director may move under § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant may move after fully exhausting administrative appeal of the Bureau's failure to file, or after 30 days from the warden's receipt of the defendant's request, whichever occurs first.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_filing_gate
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Issue exhaustion, waiver, forfeiture, and emergency applications require controlling circuit law.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-009 · verified_current
For the ordinary compassionate-release path, the court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors and find an extraordinary and compelling reason, consistency with the applicable Commission policy statement, and the policy statement's no-danger requirement. The court may reduce the prison term and may substitute probation or supervised release, with conditions, for no longer than the unserved portion.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_decision
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- No individual eligibility, danger, discretion, or relief determination is made.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025)
CLM-3582-010 · verified_current
The separate age-70 route requires age 70 or older, at least 30 years served on a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), and a Bureau of Prisons determination that the defendant is not dangerous. It is not the ordinary age-based circumstance in § 1B1.13(b)(2).
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_age_route
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Every statutory element requires the individual record.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-011 · verified_current
The current policy statement lists medical circumstances, age, family circumstances, abuse while in custody, and other circumstances similar in gravity in § 1B1.13(b)(1) through (5). The exact elements of the selected category must be proved; sympathy or seriousness alone is not a category.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_policy
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The module does not determine whether particular facts meet a category.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025)
CLM-3582-012 · verified_current
Rehabilitation cannot by itself establish an extraordinary and compelling reason, although it may be considered in combination with other circumstances.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_policy
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The other circumstance must independently be legally cognizable.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025)
CLM-3582-013 · verified_current
The current policy statement requires a finding that the defendant is not a danger to another person or the community under the § 3142(g) factors. This policy-statement finding is separate from extraordinary-and-compelling eligibility.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_policy
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Application requires the full current record.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025)
CLM-3582-014 · verified_current
Even when the eligibility and policy-statement requirements are satisfied, the court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors and retains discretion to deny or limit the reduction.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_discretion
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- No particular discretionary outcome is implied.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-015 · verified_current
*Rutherford* holds that when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the resulting disparity cannot serve as an extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Combining that disparity with other nonqualifying considerations does not convert it into a qualifying eligibility reason.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_eligibility
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The holding concerns deliberate statutory nonretroactivity rather than every later legal development.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
CLM-3582-016 · verified_current
Section 1B1.13(b)(6) remains printed in the 2025 Guidelines Manual, but it cannot be used to create eligibility from the kind of deliberately nonretroactive sentencing change barred by *Rutherford*. The Supreme Court's statutory holding controls over inconsistent guideline application.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_eligibility
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The current printed text must not be treated as independently controlling over Rutherford.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025); Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
CLM-3582-017 · partially_verified
Section 1B1.13(c), as presently printed, permits a legal change to inform the extent of a reduction after some independent extraordinary and compelling reason has established eligibility. *Rutherford* resolved eligibility and did not supply a general license to use nonretroactive changes at that later step; later controlling decisions and the precise requested use must be checked.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- compassionate_release_extent
- classification
- mixed
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Later controlling decisions and the precise asserted use must be checked.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (2025); Rutherford v. United States, 608 U.S. ___ (2026)
CLM-3582-018 · verified_current
Section 3582(c)(2) applies to a defendant sentenced based on a sentencing range that the Commission later lowered under 28 U.S.C. § 994(o), when a reduction is consistent with applicable Commission policy. The defendant or Bureau Director may move, and the court may act on its own motion; the compassionate-release warden-request gate does not apply.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_motion
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Eligibility and extent still depend on § 1B1.10 and the actual sentencing framework.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: 18 U.S.C. § 3582
CLM-3582-019 · verified_current
Eligibility requires an amendment listed in current § 1B1.10(d) and an actual lowering of the defendant's applicable guideline range. An amendment's effective date or favorable treatment at new sentencings does not by itself make it retroactive under § 3582(c)(2).
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_eligibility
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The list and amendment-specific effective provisions must be current when the court acts.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2025)
CLM-3582-020 · verified_current
A Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement does not automatically defeat § 3582(c)(2) eligibility. Under *Hughes*, the sentence is based on the guideline range when that range was part of the framework the court relied on in imposing sentence or accepting the agreement.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_eligibility
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The actual sentencing record may show that a range played no relevant part.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018)
CLM-3582-021 · verified_current
*Dillon* establishes a two-step inquiry. First, the court determines whether and to what extent § 1B1.10 authorizes a reduction; second, if a reduction is authorized, the court considers applicable § 3553(a) factors and decides whether the authorized reduction is warranted.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_decision
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The first-step limit cannot be bypassed at the discretionary step.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010)
CLM-3582-022 · verified_current
At step one, the court substitutes only the listed amendment and leaves all other guideline-application decisions unaffected. A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding does not impose a new sentence in the usual sense and is not a plenary resentencing.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_calculation
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Unrelated sentencing disputes require another authorized remedy.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2025); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010)
CLM-3582-023 · verified_current
The ordinary § 1B1.10 floor is the bottom of the amended guideline range. A qualifying original substantial-assistance reduction permits a comparably lower term, and no reduction may be below time already served.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_extent
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The actual comparison and any amendment-specific limitation must be calculated.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2025)
CLM-3582-024 · verified_current
At the discretionary step, the court considers applicable § 3553(a) factors; the policy commentary also directs consideration of public safety and permits consideration of post-sentencing conduct. Eligibility therefore does not guarantee any reduction.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- retroactive_guideline_discretion
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- No individual discretionary outcome is implied.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (2025); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010)
CLM-3582-025 · verified_current
For a defendant's criminal appeal, Rule 4(b)(1)(A) ordinarily requires a notice of appeal within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order being appealed, and Rule 3(a)(1) requires filing with the district clerk. The actual order, entry date, party, and any deadline-affecting event must be checked.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- criminal_appeal_filing
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- The actual order, entry date, party, and deadline-affecting events must be checked.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4, 22
CLM-3582-026 · verified_current
Rule 4(c) governs timely inmate filing, and Rule 4(b)(4) allows the district court, upon good cause or excusable neglect, to extend the criminal appeal period by no more than 30 days from the original deadline. The possible extension is not part of the ordinary filing period.
- jurisdiction
- federal_nationwide
- procedural posture
- criminal_appeal_filing
- classification
- binding
- last verified
- 2026-08-25
- known limitations
- Application requires the actual deposit, declaration, deadline, and district-court finding.
- researcher notes
- Nationwide organization claim bounded to official current text and controlling Supreme Court authority.
Authorities: Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4, 22