Can non-retroactive changes in the law constitute 'extraordinary and compelling reasons' authorizing a district court to reduce a prisoner's sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)?

QUESTION PRESENTED Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a prisoner’s term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction.” The Circuits have been deeply divided over whether non-retroactive changes in the law can qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons, such as if the prisoner’s sentence would have been shorter under the law as changed than originally imposed. They also are split over whether a prisoner seeking a sentence reduction based on changes in the law must proceed exclusively through habeas, as well as over whether Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2021), favorably impacts a prisoner’s ability to pursue relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Adding further to the confusion, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently issued a policy statement (now in effect) approving of district courts considering changes in the law when determining if extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under § 3582(c)(1)(A), but it did not address habeas’s exclusivity. And one Circuit has already held that its prior precedent rejecting changes in the law as grounds for sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) survives the Commission’s contrary statement. Finally, the Government previously has indicated that a Commission policy statement against consideration of changes in the law under § 3582(c)(1)(A) might obviate the need for certiorari; however, the Commission has now adopted the opposite position. The Question Presented is: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), can non-retroactive changes in the law constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” authorizing a district court to reduce a prisoner’s sentence? ii LIST OF