Reducing a Federal Sentence After Sentencing

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

---

Can a federal sentence be reduced after sentencing?

Only through a provision that reopens it. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) provides three: (c)(1)(A) compassionate release; (c)(1)(B) modification expressly permitted by statute or by Fed. R. Crim. P. 35; and (c)(2) a reduction where the Commission has lowered your guideline range and made the amendment retroactive. Amendment 821 — status points and the zero-point offender adjustment — is the current retroactive amendment.

Key takeaways on reducing a sentence after sentencing

• Three doors, and only three. § 3582(c)(1)(A), § 3582(c)(1)(B), § 3582(c)(2).
• A § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a resentencing. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010): Congress “intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.”
• Retroactivity is a list. Only amendments named in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d) count. Amendment 821 is on it — Parts A and B, Subpart 1 only.
• February 1, 2024 is a hard date. § 1B1.10(e)(2): no order reducing a sentence under Amendment 821 may take effect earlier.
• § 4C1.1 has eleven criteria and it is all-or-nothing. Amendment 831 split the old tenth criterion in two, effective November 1, 2024.
• “Zero-point” does not mean “no prior convictions.” The criterion is “did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A.”
• Most motions are denied. Through March 31, 2026, courts granted 34.3% of Part A motions and 30.4% of Part B motions.
• The court can always say no. Eligibility is step one; § 3553(a) discretion is step two.

The gateway: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)

The statute opens by closing the door, then names the exceptions.

“The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that— (1) in any case— (A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment … if it finds that— (i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction …; and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; and (B) the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 …”

Door	Provision	Who may move	What it requires	Where it is covered
1. Compassionate release	§ 3582(c)(1)(A)	The BOP Director, or the defendant after exhausting administrative rights or “the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden”	“extraordinary and compelling reasons,” consistency with the Commission’s policy statement, and the § 3553(a) factors	federal compassionate release attorney — the mechanics are covered there and not repeated here
2. Statutory or Rule 35 modification	§ 3582(c)(1)(B)	Depends on the underlying provision — Rule 35(b) is the government’s	Whatever the authorizing provision requires	rule 35 motion
3. Retroactive guideline amendment	§ 3582(c)(2)	The defendant, the BOP Director, or the court on its own motion	The Commission lowered your range and listed the amendment in § 1B1.10(d)	This page

The Supreme Court described the second door in Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022): “Section 3582(c)(1)(B) is simply a gateway provision that refers to whichever statute ‘expressly permit[s]’ the sentencing modification. It does not impose any substantive or procedural limits on a district court’s discretion; for those details, it refers to the statute authorizing the sentence modification.”

§ 3582(c)(2) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10: the two-step

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), is the case that governs this entire proceeding, and it is worth reading before filing anything.

It is not a resentencing. “Section 3582(c)(2)’s text, together with its narrow scope, shows that Congress intended to authorize only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing proceeding.”

There are two steps. “The statute thus establishes a two-step inquiry. A court must first determine that a reduction is consistent with § 1B1.10 before it may consider whether the authorized reduction is warranted, either in whole or in part, according to the factors set forth in § 3553(a).”

Only the amendment is substituted. Quoting the policy statement: “the court shall substitute only the amendments listed in subsection (c) for the corresponding guideline provisions that were applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”

And Booker does not travel with you. “Given the limited scope and purpose of § 3582(c)(2), we conclude that proceedings under that section do not implicate the interests identified in Booker.”

That last point is the one that surprises people most. A § 3582(c)(2) motion is not an opportunity to relitigate a drug quantity, a role finding, or a career-offender determination. Dillon itself so held: “Because the aspects of his sentence that Dillon seeks to correct were not affected by the Commission’s amendment to §2D1.1, they are outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2), and the District Court properly declined to address them.”

If the problem with your sentence is an error rather than a changed guideline, the provisions are direct appeal and § 2255, not this one.

What § 1B1.10 requires

Section 1B1.10 is short and every subsection matters.

(a)(1) Authority. “In a case in which a defendant is serving a term of imprisonment, and the guideline range applicable to that defendant has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines Manual listed in subsection (d) below, the court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).”

(a)(2) Exclusions. A reduction is not authorized “if— (A) none of the amendments listed in subsection (d) is applicable to the defendant; or (B) an amendment listed in subsection (d) does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”

(a)(3) Limitation. “[P]roceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant.”

(b)(1) The amended range. The court determines “the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) … had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced,” substituting “only the amendments listed in subsection (d)” and leaving “all other guideline application decisions unaffected.”

(b)(2)(A) The floor. “[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment … to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”

(b)(2)(B) The cooperator’s exception. “If the term of imprisonment imposed was less than the term of imprisonment provided by the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing pursuant to a government motion to reflect the defendant’s substantial assistance to authorities, a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range … may be appropriate.” See 5k1.1.

(b)(2)(C) The absolute limit. “In no event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.”

(c) Mandatory minimums and substantial assistance. Where a statutory minimum applied and the court had authority to go below it on a government substantial-assistance motion, “the amended guideline range shall be determined without regard to the operation of §5G1.1 … and §5G1.2.”

(d) The list. Amendments covered are: “126, 130, 156, 176, 269, 329, 341, 371, 379, 380, 433, 454, 461, 484, 488, 490, 499, 505, 506, 516, 591, 599, 606, 657, 702, 706 as amended by 711, 715, 750 (parts A and C only), 782 (subject to subsection (e)(1)), and 821 (parts A and B, subpart 1 only and subject to subsection (e)(2)).”

(e) Special instructions. “(2) The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Part A or Part B, Subpart 1 of Amendment 821 unless the effective date of the court’s order is February 1, 2024, or later.”

Two things to take from subsection (d). First, retroactivity is a closed list — an amendment that helps you is worth nothing under § 3582(c)(2) unless the Commission put it on that list. Second, Amendment 821 is on it only as to Parts A and B, Subpart 1. Nothing else in Amendment 821 is retroactive.

Amendment 821: what it actually did

Amendment 821 took effect November 1, 2023 and revised two criminal-history provisions in Chapter Four.

Part A — “status points” under § 4A1.1

Before Amendment 821, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) added two criminal history points to any defendant who committed the offense while under a criminal justice sentence — probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status — regardless of how many points they otherwise had.

Part A struck that provision and replaced it with the current § 4A1.1(e):

“Add 1 point if the defendant (1) receives 7 or more points under subsections (a) through (d), and (2) committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.”

The change is doubly narrowing. Status points dropped from two to one, and they now apply only to defendants who already have seven or more points. A defendant with a modest record who committed the offense on probation lost the status points entirely.

The Commission’s stated reason, in Amendment 825: “the changes made by Part A reflect updated research suggesting that status points’ ability to predict future recidivism—a core justification for their use—may be less than the original Commission may have expected.”

Part B, Subpart 1 — the zero-point offender adjustment at § 4C1.1

Part B created a new Chapter Four, Part C, and a new guideline: § 4C1.1, “Adjustment for Certain Zero-Point Offenders.” It provides a 2-level decrease from the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three for a defendant who meets all of the listed criteria.

The § 4C1.1 criteria — all eleven

The list below is stated as amended. Effective November 1, 2024, Amendment 831 struck the former tenth criterion and replaced it with two, so there are now eleven. A defendant must satisfy every one.

#	Criterion (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a))
(1)	“the defendant did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A”
(2)	“the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.4 (Terrorism)”
(3)	“the defendant did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection with the offense”
(4)	“the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury”
(5)	“the instant offense of conviction is not a sex offense”
(6)	“the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship”
(7)	“the defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense”
(8)	“the instant offense of conviction is not covered by §2H1.1 (Offenses Involving Individual Rights)”
(9)	“the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3A1.1 (Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or §3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense)”
(10)	“the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role)”
(11)	“the defendant was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 848”

Four points about that list.

It is all-or-nothing. The guideline requires that the defendant “meets all of the following criteria.” One failure ends it.

“Zero-point” is not “no record.” Criterion (1) is “did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A” — not “has no prior convictions.” A prior conviction that scored zero points under § 4A1.2‘s time limits or exclusions does not disqualify. Competitor pages routinely write “first-time offender,” which is wrong and turns eligible people away.

The old tenth criterion was read disjunctively, and the amendment confirmed it. Before November 1, 2024, criterion (10) read: “the defendant did not receive an adjustment under §3B1.1 (Aggravating Role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise.” Defendants argued, relying on Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124 (2024), that both had to be present to disqualify. Every court of appeals to address it rejected that: United States v. Morales, 122 F.4th 590 (5th Cir. 2024); United States v. Lall, No. 24-1960 (3d Cir. Dec. 2, 2024); United States v. Gonzalez-Loera, 135 F.4th 856 (9th Cir. 2025); United States v. Medina De La Cruz, 135 F.4th 1127 (8th Cir. 2025). The Third Circuit’s reasoning was that the conjunctive reading “would be rendered superfluous” because a defendant sentenced for a continuing criminal enterprise under § 2D1.5 does not also receive a Chapter Three, Part B adjustment. Amendment 831 then split the criterion in two, which settles the question prospectively.

Application Note 2 permits an upward departure — and that note now sits oddly. The § 4C1.1 commentary has permitted an upward departure where the adjustment substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal history. Since Amendment 836 removed the departure framework from the Guidelines Manual effective November 1, 2025, the practical route for a court that takes that view is now an upward variance under § 3553(a). Either way, § 4C1.1 is not risk-free, and almost no competing page mentions it. See downward departure.

Reading the § 4C1.1 criteria closely

Four of the eleven criteria carry definitions or cross-references that decide real cases, and they are worth setting out.

“Did not receive any criminal history points from Chapter Four, Part A” — criterion (1). This is a computation, not a characterisation. It refers to points assessed under § 4A1.1, which in turn depends on § 4A1.2’s counting rules: the fifteen-year and ten-year lookback periods, the exclusion of certain non-felony offenses, the treatment of consolidated sentences, foreign and tribal convictions, expunged and invalid convictions, diversionary dispositions, and juvenile adjudications. A defendant whose only prior is old enough to score zero points satisfies criterion (1). A defendant who received a single point does not — and, as the Commission’s data shows, that is the most common reason Part B motions fail.

“Substantial financial hardship” — criterion (6). The § 4C1.1 commentary directs that “[i]n determining whether the defendant’s acts or omissions resulted in ‘substantial financial hardship’ to a victim, the court shall consider, among other things, the non-exhaustive list of factors provided in Application Note 4(F) of the Commentary to §2B1.1 (Theft, Property Destruction, and Fraud).” Note two limits in the guideline’s own words: the criterion asks whether the defendant personally caused the hardship, and it asks about hardship to a victim, not about the aggregate loss figure. In a large fraud with many participants and one defendant whose role was peripheral, that distinction matters.

“Did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in connection with the offense” — criterion (7). This is the second most common Part B disqualifier, appearing in 1,607 denials. It is written in the same form as the safety valve‘s weapon criterion at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2), which is why the two so often rise and fall together. It reaches personal conduct and inducement — not, on its face, a co-participant’s independent possession.

“Did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (Aggravating Role)” — criterion (10), as amended. After Amendment 831, this stands alone. An aggravating-role adjustment of any size — two, three, or four levels — disqualifies. That is one more reason the role finding in the original presentence report has consequences long after sentencing.

The older amendments still on the list

Amendment 821 is the live one, but § 1B1.10(d) is a cumulative list and several earlier amendments remain on it. Two matter in practice for people sentenced years ago.

Amendment 782 — the 2014 drug guidelines amendment, often called “Drugs Minus Two,” which reduced most § 2D1.1 base offense levels by two. It is on the list “subject to subsection (e)(1),” which provides: “The court shall not order a reduced term of imprisonment based on Amendment 782 unless the effective date of the court’s order is November 1, 2015, or later.” That window has long since opened, and most eligible reductions were granted years ago — but the amendment remains available where a motion was never made.

Amendments 706 (as amended by 711), 715 and 750 (parts A and C only) — the crack cocaine amendments that preceded the Fair Sentencing Act. These overlap with, but are distinct from, First Step Act § 404 relief.

The practical point for someone reading a list of amendment numbers for the first time: a retroactive amendment does not expire. If a person was eligible in 2016 and no one filed, the motion can still be made — subject to § 1B1.10(b)(2)(C)’s absolute limit that “[i]n no event may the reduced term of imprisonment be less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.”

What a reduction does not touch

Supervised release. A § 3582(c)(2) reduction addresses the term of imprisonment. The supervised release term and its conditions are unaffected unless the court separately modifies them. Early termination of supervised release is a different motion under a different statute.

The conviction. Nothing about § 3582(c)(2) disturbs the judgment of conviction or its collateral consequences.

Restitution, fines and forfeiture. These are separate components of the judgment and are not reduced.

Other guideline findings. Dillon again: the court “shall leave all other guideline application decisions unaffected.” A drug quantity, a loss amount, an obstruction enhancement, or a career-offender designation that was wrong at sentencing stays wrong for these purposes. Those belong on appeal or in a § 2255 motion.

The release date, immediately. An order granting a reduction produces an amended judgment, which the Bureau of Prisons must receive and process before a projected release date changes.

Retroactivity: the dates that matter

Date	What happened
April 27, 2023	The Commission submitted Amendment 821 to Congress
August 24, 2023	The Commission voted to give Amendment 821 retroactive effect
November 1, 2023	Amendment 821 took effect prospectively; Amendment 825 added it to § 1B1.10(d)
February 1, 2024	The earliest date any order reducing a sentence under Amendment 821 may take effect — § 1B1.10(e)(2)
November 1, 2024	Amendment 831 split § 4C1.1(a)(10) into (10) and (11)

The February 1, 2024 instruction has a purpose the Commission explained: a three-month delay was needed “(1) to give courts adequate time to obtain and review the information necessary to make an individualized determination in each case,” “(2) to ensure that, to the extent practicable, all individuals who are to be released have the opportunity to participate in reentry programs and transitional services, such as placement in halfway houses, while still in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons,” and “(3) to permit those agencies that will be responsible for individuals after their release to prepare for the increased responsibility.”

The application note also confirms that courts could act early so long as the order’s effective date was compliant: subsection (e)(2) “does not preclude the court from conducting sentence reduction proceedings and entering orders under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement before February 1, 2024, provided that any order reducing the defendant’s term of imprisonment has an effective date of February 1, 2024, or later.”

What has actually happened: the Commission’s own data

Before Amendment 821 became retroactive, the Commission estimated that Part A would lower the range for 11,495 incarcerated people, with an average reduction of 14 months (11.7%), and that Part B, Subpart 1 would lower the range for 7,272, with an average reduction of 15 months (17.6%).

In May 2026 the Commission published retroactivity data reports covering motions decided through March 31, 2026. These are the real numbers.

	Part A (status points)	Part B (zero-point offender)
Motions decided	17,218	13,451
Granted	5,901 (34.3%)	4,094 (30.4%)
Denied	11,317 (65.7%)	9,357 (69.6%)
Mean sentence before	116 months	92 months
Mean sentence after	104 months	77 months
Mean reduction	12 months (11.6%)	15 months (16.9%)
Granted motions originating with the court	73.9%	77.9%
Granted motions originating with the defendant	26.1%	22.1%
Most common offense among grants	Drug trafficking (46.2%)	Drug trafficking (79.8%)

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Retroactivity Data Reports on Parts A and B of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment (May 1, 2026).

Three things are worth drawing out of that table.

Roughly two in three motions were denied. That is not a reason not to file where eligibility is real, but it is the honest baseline, and it is a number nobody else publishes on a page like this.

The reductions are meaningful but not transformative. Twelve to fifteen months on average. For someone within a year of release, that can be the difference between serving the sentence and going home; for someone with a decade left, it is a real but partial change.

Most granted motions came from the court, not the defendant. In three-quarters of the granted Part A cases and more than three-quarters of the granted Part B cases, the motion originated with the court — typically after probation screened the population and identified eligible cases. That is a useful fact for someone waiting: in many districts the review happened without the defendant asking. It is also a reason not to assume a screening was done correctly, or done at all.

What a granted case looks like

The Commission also tabulated the sentencing characteristics of the people whose motions were granted against those whose motions were denied. For Part B — the zero-point offender adjustment — the contrast is stark, and it maps precisely onto the § 4C1.1 criteria.

Sentencing factor	Present in granted Part B cases	Present in denied Part B cases
Weapon involved	1.7%	29.2%
Weapon specific offense characteristic applied	1.6%	21.1%
Firearms mandatory minimum applied	0.1%	9.0%
Safety valve applied	80.5%	28.1%
Aggravating role adjustment (§ 3B1.1)	0.7%	20.0%
Mitigating role adjustment (§ 3B1.2)	15.8%	4.5%
Obstruction adjustment (§ 3C1.1)	3.3%	5.5%
Criminal history category I	100.0%	72.8%
Career offender (§ 4B1.1)	0.0%	2.3%
Sentenced within the guideline range	62.1%	41.8%
Sentenced below the guideline range	37.1%	54.0%

Source: U.S. Sentencing Commission, Retroactivity Data Report on Part B of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment (May 1, 2026), Table 5.

The profile of a granted Part B case is legible from that table: criminal history category I with no points, no weapon, no aggravating role, and — in four out of five cases — a safety valve finding at the original sentencing. That last figure is the single most useful screening indicator on this page. A safety-valve finding in the original judgment is a strong signal of § 4C1.1 eligibility, because the § 3553(f) criteria and the § 4C1.1 criteria overlap heavily: no weapon, no violence, no death or serious bodily injury, and no organizer, leader, manager or supervisor role.

Part A tells a different story, because it reaches a different population. Among granted Part A motions, criminal history category II accounted for 30.0% and category III for 37.4%; among denials, category VI accounted for 30.6% and career offenders for 12.0%. Part A helps people with records — but not people whose category came from somewhere other than Chapter Four, Part A.

Where you are sentenced matters, and the Commission’s data shows how much

The reports break grant rates down by district, and the spread is very wide.

For Part B, grant rates among districts with meaningful volume ranged from 1.9% in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (1 of 52) and 7.8% in Arizona (15 of 192) to 48.6% in the Middle District of Florida (532 of 1,095), 51.3% in the Northern District of Alabama (39 of 76) and 55.5% in the Eastern District of Texas (274 of 494).

For Part A, the range ran from 3.3% in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (4 of 121) and 13.3% in the Northern District of Oklahoma (10 of 75) to 63.9% in Kansas (85 of 133) and 80.4% in Maryland (115 of 143).

Two honest caveats before anyone reads too much into that. First, grant rates reflect the composition of each district’s incarcerated population as much as judicial attitude — a district with a large proportion of career offenders or firearms cases will have a lower eligibility rate whatever its judges think. Second, the denominator is motions decided, and districts differ in how aggressively probation and the defender screened the population, which changes who filed in the first place.

What the variation does establish is that these are individualized determinations made district by district, and that a motion is worth preparing properly rather than filing as a form.

Why motions were denied

The Commission tabulated the reasons. Courts may give more than one, so the counts exceed the number of denials.

Part B (zero-point offender) — 11,041 reasons cited in 9,357 denials:

Reason given	N	%
Not eligible under § 4C1.1	6,360	57.6
— Assigned more than zero criminal history points at sentencing	2,754	24.9
— Firearm possessed, etc. in connection with offense	1,607	14.6
— Aggravating role adjustment applied (§ 3B1.1)	1,063	9.6
— Conviction was a sex offense	273	2.5
— Violence or threat of violence used in connection with offense	245	2.2
— Offense resulted in death or serious bodily injury	185	1.7
— Defendant caused substantial financial hardship	144	1.3
— Hate crime adjustment applied (§ 3A1.1)	62	0.6
— 21 U.S.C. § 848 conviction	15	0.1
— Civil rights guideline applied (§ 2H1.1)	8	0.1
— Terrorism adjustment applied (§ 3A1.4)	4	0.0
Not eligible under § 1B1.10	2,219	20.2
— Current sentence below new guideline range and no § 5K1.1	982	8.9
— Statutory mandatory minimum penalty controls sentence	609	5.5
— Individual received Amendment 821 reduction at original sentencing	383	3.5
— Original sentence has been served	106	1.0
— Guideline range does not change	82	0.7
— Career Offender or Armed Career Criminal provisions control sentence	29	0.3
Denied on the merits	886	8.0
— 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors	684	6.2
— Individual has already benefitted from departure or variance	131	1.2
— Binding plea agreement determined sentence	38	0.3
— Post-sentencing or post-conviction conduct	33	0.3
No reason provided / other	1,576	14.2

Part A (status points) — 12,858 reasons cited in 11,317 denials: the single largest category was “did not receive status points” (3,034; 23.6%), followed by “criminal history category does not change” (2,957; 23.0%), career offender or armed career criminal provisions controlling (812; 6.3%), a current sentence already below the new range with no § 5K1.1 motion (736; 5.7%), and a statutory mandatory minimum controlling (498; 3.9%). Denials on the merits accounted for 1,849 reasons (14.4%), of which 1,417 (11.0%) rested on the § 3553(a) factors.

What that data tells a reader with a case. The overwhelming majority of denials are eligibility denials, not discretionary ones. In the Part B data, more than three-quarters of the denial reasons were “not eligible” under either § 4C1.1 or § 1B1.10; only 8% were merits denials. That means the honest first question is not “will the judge be sympathetic” but “does the arithmetic work” — and that question can be answered from the presentence report and the judgment before anything is filed.

Applied Insight — Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney: The most common eligibility problem in the Commission’s own data is also the most easily checked: the person received criminal history points. The second is a firearm finding. Both appear on the face of the presentence report, and both can be established in ten minutes by someone who has the document. Where the firm sees genuine opportunity is in the third category — cases where a criminal history point should not have been assessed in the first place under § 4A1.2’s counting rules, because removing it can move a person from ineligible to eligible under § 4C1.1(a)(1). That is a records exercise, not an advocacy exercise.

The eligibility rules that catch people

Beyond the § 4C1.1 criteria, four provisions defeat otherwise sympathetic motions.

The amended range has to actually change. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B): no reduction where the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” In the Part A data, 2,957 denials rested on the criminal history category not changing, and 454 on the guideline range not changing.

A mandatory minimum can swallow the amendment. Where a statutory floor set the sentence, lowering the guideline range changes nothing. Application Note 1(A) says the amendment must lower the range and not be defeated “because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision (e.g., a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment).”

Koons v. United States, 584 U.S. 700 (2018), goes further. Defendants there had received mandatory-minimum sentences reduced by substantial-assistance motions, and the Court held them ineligible: their sentences “were not ‘based on’ their lowered Guidelines ranges but, instead, were ‘based on’ their mandatory minimums and on their substantial assistance to the Government.” The test is “the role that the Guidelines range played in the selection of the sentence eventually imposed—not the role that the range played in the initial calculation.” See mandatory minimum sentence.

Career offender and armed career criminal designations control. Where the criminal history category or offense level came from § 4B1.1 or § 4B1.4 rather than from Chapter Four, Part A, an Amendment 821 change to Part A does not move the range. That accounted for 812 Part A denials.

Being already below the amended range is a bar — with one exception. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) forbids reducing below the minimum of the amended range. In the Part B data, 982 denials were coded “current sentence below new guideline range and no § 5K1.1.” The exception in § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) applies where the original below-range sentence came from a government substantial-assistance motion: in that case “a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range … may be appropriate.”

And a binding plea does not automatically bar relief. Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018), held that “a sentence imposed pursuant to a Type-C agreement is ‘based on’ the defendant’s Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement,” and that “when the Commission lowers a defendant’s Guidelines range the defendant will be eligible for relief under §3582(c)(2) absent clear demonstration, based on the record as a whole, that the court would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines.” The court may still consider “the benefits the defendant gained by entering a Type-C agreement” in deciding whether and how far to reduce.

Step two: the court can still say no

Eligibility is not entitlement. § 1B1.10, Application Note 1(B)(i): “Consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining: (I) whether a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment is warranted; and (II) the extent of such reduction.”

The commentary also directs the court to consider “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by such a reduction,” and permits it to consider post-sentencing conduct.

That is where a motion is actually won or lost once eligibility is established, and it is the part a defendant can influence. Disciplinary history, program completions, educational and vocational certificates, work evaluations, medical records, and a concrete release plan are the material. In the Part B data, 33 denials were coded to “post-sentencing or post-conviction conduct” — a small number, but the mirror image is that good conduct records support grants.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The single most useful document in a § 3582(c)(2) filing that has cleared eligibility is the individualized needs plan and progress report from the Bureau of Prisons, together with the disciplinary record. Courts read them. A person with clear conduct, completed programming, and a documented release plan presents very differently from a filing that argues eligibility and then stops. Requesting the records takes time, and it should be started before the motion is drafted, not after the court asks. Where a reduction is granted, the amended judgment has to reach the Designation and Sentence Computation Center before a release date moves — that is not automatic and it is worth confirming.

How to check whether an amendment applies to you

A practical sequence, in the order the analysis actually runs.

1. Get the presentence report and the judgment. Everything below is in them. If you no longer have them, our § 2255 pages cover how to obtain them at getting transcripts, PSR and your file.
2. Find the criminal history computation. How many points, and from which subsections? Were status points assessed under the old § 4A1.1(d)? Is the total zero?
3. Check whether the amendment is on the § 1B1.10(d) list. For Amendment 821, only Parts A and B, Subpart 1.
4. Recompute the range with the amendment substituted and nothing else changed. § 1B1.10(b)(1).
5. Ask whether the range actually moved. If the category or the range is unchanged, the analysis ends.
6. Ask whether something else controlled the sentence — a mandatory minimum, career offender, armed career criminal, or a statutory maximum.
7. For § 4C1.1, run all eleven criteria. Every one.
8. Check § 1B1.10(b)(2). Is the current sentence already at or below the amended range’s minimum? If so, was the original below-range sentence the product of a government substantial-assistance motion?
9. Then, and only then, build the § 3553(a) case.

Procedure

Who files. § 3582(c)(2) permits a motion by the defendant, by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or action by the court on its own motion. In practice, in most districts, probation screens the affected population and the court, the Federal Public Defender, or the United States Attorney identifies eligible cases. As the Commission’s data shows, roughly three-quarters of granted motions originated with the court.

Counsel. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c) proceeding — a point district courts state routinely, including in United States v. Robinson, No. 8:22-cr-00068 (D. Neb. Nov. 25, 2025). Many districts nevertheless appoint the Federal Public Defender for retroactivity screening by standing order.

Presence. Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4) provides that a defendant need not be present where “the proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).”

Outcome. An order granting a reduction issues as an amended judgment. It cannot take effect before February 1, 2024 for an Amendment 821 reduction, and it can never reduce a term “less than the term of imprisonment the defendant has already served.”

Appeal. A denial is appealable, and the standard is deferential. Where the denial rests on an eligibility determination, the question is legal; where it rests on § 3553(a), the review is for abuse of discretion. See standards of review.

The other doors

Compassionate release — § 3582(c)(1)(A). Available on the defendant’s own motion after exhausting administrative remedies or “the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden,” on a finding of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The Commission’s policy statement at § 1B1.13 identifies the circumstances that qualify. This firm handles these cases and they are covered in depth at federal compassionate release attorney, including what judges consider and options after a denial.

Rule 35 — through § 3582(c)(1)(B). Rule 35(a) for clear error within 14 days of the oral pronouncement; Rule 35(b) for post-sentencing substantial assistance, on the government’s motion. See rule 35 motion.

First Step Act § 404 — also through § 3582(c)(1)(B). For covered crack cocaine offenses committed before August 3, 2010, § 404 permits a court to impose a reduced sentence as if the Fair Sentencing Act had been in effect. Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481 (2022), held that “the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence pursuant to the First Step Act” — while noting that a court “cannot … recalculate a movant’s benchmark Guidelines range in any way other than to reflect the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act.”

Direct appeal and § 2255. A sentence that was unlawful when imposed is challenged by appeal or, if unpreserved, by § 2255 — commonly as ineffective assistance at sentencing. Where an intervening Supreme Court decision is the basis, see retroactive Supreme Court decisions.

Clemency. Where no judicial route remains: federal clemency.

What is not retroactive

This section exists because hope attaches to every amendment and the list in § 1B1.10(d) is short.

• Amendment 826 (acquitted conduct, eff. Nov. 1, 2024) — created § 1B1.3(c). Not on the § 1B1.10(d) list.
• Amendment 833 (mitigating role in drug cases, eff. Nov. 1, 2025) — the new § 2D1.1(e)(2) special instruction and the lowered mitigating-role caps. Not on the list. See minor role reduction.
• Amendment 836 (removal of departures, eff. Nov. 1, 2025) — a structural change that does not lower any range. A district court considering it in a different context observed that “it does not seem as if this Amendment was made retroactively applicable.” United States v. Cooper, No. 8:14-cr-00083 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2026).
• Amendment 831 (eff. Nov. 1, 2024) — including the § 4C1.1(a)(10)/(11) split. Not on the list; it matters for people sentenced after it took effect.
• Parts of Amendment 821 other than Part A and Part B, Subpart 1.

The Commission publishes an analysis each year of whether recent amendments should be made retroactive — including, most recently, an Analysis of the Impact of Certain 2026 Guideline Amendments if Made Retroactive (June 11, 2026). Whether an amendment is added to § 1B1.10(d) is a decision the Commission makes by vote; nothing about a favorable amendment is self-executing.

How the amendment cycle works, and what to watch

Understanding the calendar explains why so much sentence-reduction news turns out to be premature.

The Commission amends the guidelines annually. Amendments are submitted to Congress by May 1 and take effect the following November 1 unless Congress acts to the contrary — the statutory scheme is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 994(p). Before that, the Commission publishes proposed priorities and proposed amendments in the Federal Register and takes public comment.

Retroactivity is a separate vote. Promulgating an amendment does nothing for people already sentenced. The Commission must separately decide, under 28 U.S.C. § 994(u), whether to add it to the § 1B1.10(d) list — and it publishes an impact analysis first. The most recent is the Analysis of the Impact of Certain 2026 Guideline Amendments if Made Retroactive (June 11, 2026); earlier ones cover the 2025 and 2024 cycles.

In deciding, the Commission weighs three things. As stated in Amendment 825: “(1) the purpose of the amendment; (2) the magnitude of the change in the guideline range made by the amendment; and (3) the difficulty of applying the amendment retroactively.”

And it can attach conditions. § 1B1.10(e) contains delayed-effective-date instructions for both Amendment 782 and Amendment 821.

What that means for a reader. An amendment being announced, promulgated, or effective is not the same as an amendment being available to someone already serving a sentence. The question is always whether it appears in § 1B1.10(d). Anyone who tells you a new amendment applies to a person in custody should be able to point to that list.

If you are the family member reading this

Most of the people who research sentence reductions are not the people serving the sentences. If you are trying to work out whether Amendment 821 reaches someone you love, here is what actually helps.

Find two documents. The presentence report and the judgment. Almost every question on this page is answered by the criminal history section of the first and the terms of the second. If nobody has them, trial counsel usually does, and our § 2255 pages explain how to get transcripts, the PSR and the file.

Look for two things in the presentence report. The total criminal history points, and whether any of the § 4C1.1 disqualifiers appear — a firearm finding, an aggravating role adjustment, a sex offense, violence, or a finding of substantial financial hardship. If the total is zero and none of those appear, § 4C1.1 is genuinely worth investigating. If the total is anything above zero, § 4C1.1 is unavailable and the question becomes whether Part A status points were assessed.

Find out whether the court already reviewed the case. In most districts, probation screened the incarcerated population after February 1, 2024 and the court, the Federal Public Defender, or the United States Attorney flagged eligible cases. The Commission’s data shows roughly three-quarters of granted motions originated with the court. A docket check will show whether anything was filed.

Gather the custodial record now, not later. Disciplinary history, program completions, work evaluations, education certificates, and the individualized needs plan. If eligibility clears, these are what the § 3553(a) argument is made from, and they take weeks to obtain.

Be realistic about the size. The Commission’s own data puts the average granted reduction at 12 months for Part A and 15 months for Part B. That is genuinely significant for someone close to release and modest for someone with years remaining.

And be careful with what circulates inside. A great deal of inaccurate information about “the new law” moves through federal facilities. The only amendments that help someone already sentenced are the ones listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d).

Where this leads next on post-sentencing reductions

• The two clocks immediately after sentencing: rule 35 motion
• The calculation that produced the range in the first place: federal sentencing guidelines
• The document that establishes eligibility: presentence report
• The statutory floor that defeats many motions: mandatory minimum sentence
• Cooperation, and the § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) exception: 5k1.1
• Extraordinary and compelling circumstances: federal compassionate release attorney
• The full stage map: federal sentence mitigation attorney

Why work with Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C.

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019 and practicing nationwide on an intentionally small caseload. Elizabeth Franklin-Best has more than twenty years of federal and appellate criminal defense experience, has handled more than 330 federal proceedings, over 100 of them appeals, with sixteen published decisions as counsel of record, and is admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and twelve of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals — every regional circuit (1st–11th) plus the D.C. Circuit. She is recognized by Best Lawyers in America 2026 for Appellate Practice and by Chambers USA 2026 for Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations, and is the author of Reversing Your Criminal Conviction: Develop Your Winning Strategy (2023).

Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, the firm’s Managing Director, leads its federal prison consulting practice — Bureau of Prisons designation, sentence computation, First Step Act time credits, RDAP, and reentry planning — and is the author of the Federal Prison Handbook, Directory of Federal Prisons, Prison Education Guide, and College for Convicts. He serves as Chairman of the Board of the Human Rights Defense Center.

Sentence-reduction work is half records analysis and half custodial record-building. The firm does both.

Talk to a federal sentencing lawyer

If someone you know is serving a federal sentence and you want to know whether Amendment 821 reaches them, the answer is in the presentence report and the judgment — specifically in the criminal history computation and in whether any of the § 4C1.1 disqualifiers appear on the face of the report.

Schedule a confidential consultation or call (843) 620-1100. Columbia office: 3710 Landmark Dr #113, Columbia, SC 29204; the firm also maintains an office in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, and represents clients nationwide.

Have ready: the presentence report, the judgment, the statement of reasons if available, the register number, and the current projected release date.

Frequently Asked Questions About Reducing a Sentence

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026