United States v. Daniel Keller
2 F.4th 1278
9th Cir.2021Background
- Daniel E. Keller was convicted in 2015 of methamphetamine distribution and being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced to 173 months, later reduced to 137 months.
- Under the First Step Act, an inmate may file a § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate-release motion in district court only after exhausting BOP administrative remedies or after 30 days from the warden’s receipt of a request.
- Keller filed a first compassionate-release motion after exhausting BOP remedies; the government conceded exhaustion and the district court denied the motion on September 4, 2020, based on the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
- While that appeal was pending, Keller submitted a second administrative request in January 2021 but filed a renewed § 3582 motion only eight days later, before administrative exhaustion; the warden denied the January request; the government objected to lack of exhaustion but the district court again denied on the merits (February 12, 2021).
- The Ninth Circuit held that § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule that must be enforced when properly invoked by the government, affirmed both denials without prejudice, and ruled the district court’s failure to address exhaustion was harmless because it denied relief on other grounds for the second motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Keller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Is § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement jurisdictional or a mandatory claim‑processing rule? | Requirement is a mandatory claim‑processing rule that must be enforced when properly raised. | Argued exhaustion need not bar court consideration (or contended he had exhausted). | Held: Mandatory claim‑processing rule; not jurisdictional; enforceable if timely invoked by government. |
| 2. Did Keller exhaust administrative remedies for his January 2021 (second) motion? | Keller failed to exhaust (filed federal motion 8 days after warden received request). | Keller argued prior July 2020 request or elapsed time before decision satisfied exhaustion. | Held: Keller did not exhaust; prior July request was predicate for first motion and cannot satisfy a new request based on changed circumstances. |
| 3. Did the district court err by addressing the merits despite the government’s exhaustion objection? | Government urged dismissal/denial without consideration until exhaustion. | Keller relied on district court’s merits ruling and argued exhaustion was met/waived. | Held: District court erred in overlooking the objection, but error was harmless because the motion was denied on other grounds. |
| 4. Must a district court make an explicit "extraordinary and compelling" finding before denying on § 3553(a) grounds? | Court may address § 3553(a) factors and deny even assuming extraordinary and compelling reasons exist. | Keller argued sequential step‑by‑step findings are required before reaching § 3553(a). | Held: No—sequential finding is required only to grant relief; a court denying relief need not explicitly find extraordinary and compelling reasons first. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions).
- United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (BOP exhaustion is mandatory claim‑processing rule).
- United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020) (same: exhaustion requirement must be observed).
- United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2020) (same: requests must be presented to BOP first).
- United States v. Sanford, 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021) (enforcement of statutory exhaustion; harmless‑error discussion).
- Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from claim‑processing rules).
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011) (purpose and nature of claim‑processing rules).
- United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (courts may assume extraordinary circumstances and deny on § 3553(a) grounds).