Government Appeals From Compassionate-Release Grants
In United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, the First Circuit held that the government can appeal from orders granting a criminal defendant’s request for compassionate release. Although several courts of appeals have reviewed these appeals, few have addressed their jurisdiction to do so in any depth. But the issue requires some thought—as the Rivera-Rodríguez panel noted, “[t]he government has no right of appeal in criminal cases except where a statute expressly grants such a right.”
Simplifying a fair bit, in 2011, the defendant in Rivera-Rodríguez pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. Nine years later, he sought compassionate release due to heightened risk of death or severe illness were he to contract COVID-19. The district court determined that the number of deaths at the defendant’s institution, combined with the defendant’s medical conditions, “qualified as extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying early release.” The government appealed.
The defendant responded by arguing that no statute authorized the government’s appeal from a compassionate-release grant. As the defendant saw things, the grant of compassionate release was a sentencing order. Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor 18 U.S.C. § 3731 permit government appeals from a sentencing decision. And no provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)—which contains four situations in which the government can appeal a sentence—applies to compassionate release.
The First Circuit rejected the premise of the defendant’s argument—that a grant of compassionate release is a sentence. Analogizing to orders reducing a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), the First Circuit concluded that compassionate-release orders instead modify an existing judgment (the original sentence).
So “compassionate release appealability, like appealability with respect to the disposition of virtually all other post-judgment motions, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” (Quotation marks omitted.) “Orders resolving compassionate release motions amount to final judgments; like sentence reduction orders granted under Rule 35(b), they satisfy the preconditions established by section 1291, for entry of the order leaves nothing further to be done.” (Cleaned up.)
United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 2023 WL 4633508 (1st Cir. July 20, 2023), available at the First Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
The collateral-order doctrine is one of the most frequently invoked exceptions to the final-judgment rule. The doctrine deems final a district court order that (1) conclusively resolves an issue, (2) involves an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in an appeal after a final judgment. The collateral-order doctrine is also […]
Continue reading....
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....
October Term 2017 could have been a big one for appellate jurisdiction at the Supreme Court. But it was not to be. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc. settled before the Court could decide whether denials of state-action immunity are immediately appealable collateral orders. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez—which […]
Continue reading....
In United States v. Paup, the Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a district court order remanding a criminal sentence to a magistrate judge. The remand order did not affect the conviction or sentence and left open only the amount of a restitution order. It was accordingly a final decision that was […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
I’m thrilled to announce the creation of Final Decisions PLLC, an appellate boutique and consultancy focused on appellate jurisdiction. Through it, I hope to partner with lawyers facing complex appellate-jurisdiction issues. Almost six years ago, I started the Final Decisions blog as a way to keep on top of developments in the world of appellate […]
Continue reading....
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Ashley v. Clay County, the Fifth Circuit held that a municipal defendant could appeal a district court’s refusal to resolve an immunity defense despite the district court’s ordering arbitration.
Continue reading....
Courts sometimes suggest that would-be appellants must establish appellate standing by showing that the appealed decision injured the would-be appellant. When the appealing party cannot show this injury, these courts think that they have lost Article III jurisdiction. But as a recent opinion from the D.C. Circuit’s Judge Pillard explained, that’s not quite right. Judge […]
Continue reading....
In Silverthorne Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Services, Ltd., a majority of the Fifth Circuit held that a motions panel had erred in permitting a certified appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court had certified for an immediate appeal a decision on how the plaintiffs could prove reasonable-royalty damages in a trade-secret case. The […]
Continue reading....