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 City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....