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
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....