Split Fifth Circuit panel holds that “changes in the law” can be a basis for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

A helpful colleague made sure I did not miss a notable new panel decision from the Fifth Circuit in US v. Jean, No. 23-40463 (5th Cir. July 15, 2024) (available here).  The case concerns the long-simmering question of whether “changes in the law” can provide a basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and this appeal concerns review of a reduction granted before the new US Sentencing Commission amended guideline was applicable.  Both the facts and reasoning in Jean are worth reading in full, but here are a few key passages from the majority opinion:

The question before the court is a simple one: does a sentencing court have the discretion to hold that non-retroactive changes in the law, when combined with extraordinary rehabilitation, amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release?  Considering this question carefully, we answer it in the affirmative.

We explain first the discretion afforded to a sentencing court.  With this discretion in mind, we conclude that there is no textual basis for creating a categorical bar against district courts considering non-retroactive changes in the law as one factor.  Next, we explain that our precedent does not prevent us from reaching this outcome.  Nor is this outcome inconsistent with other unpublished decisions from this court. And finally, we explain that, although the Sentencing Commission’s November 1, 2023 Amendments are not binding on appeal, the Amendments support the outcome we reach today….

In deciding the same question before us, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Chen concluded that “[t]o hold that district courts cannot consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law would be to create a categorical bar against a particular factor, which Congress itself has not done.” 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022).  We agree.  Congress has never wholly excluded the consideration of any factors. Instead, it appropriately “affords district courts the discretion to consider a combination of ‘any’ factors particular to the case at hand.” Id….

It is within a district court’s sound discretion to hold that nonretroactive changes in the law, in conjunction with other factors such as extraordinary rehabilitation, sufficiently support a motion for compassionate release. To be clear, it is also within a district court’s sound discretion to hold, after fulsome review, that the same do not warrant compassionate release. For this court to hold otherwise would be to limit the discretion of the district courts, contrary to Supreme Court precedent and Congressional intent. We decline the United States’ invitation to impose such a limitation. And, of course, district courts are now guided by the November 1, 2023 Amendments in future cases.

The dissent authored by Judge Jerry Smith starts this way:

The kindest thing I can say about the majority’s zealous1 opinion is that it is a horrifying violation of this court’s well-respected rule of orderliness. I respectfully dissent.