16 F.4th 126
4th Cir.2021Background
- Appellant Saeed Abdul Muhammad is serving a 210‑month federal sentence for drug offenses at FCI Loretto.
- On March 31, 2020 he asked the warden to file a compassionate‑release motion based on hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, and COVID‑19 risk; the warden denied the request on April 17, 2020 and advised him to appeal administratively.
- Appellant did not pursue the Bureau of Prisons administrative appeal; instead he filed a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion in district court on August 27, 2020 (149 days after his warden request).
- The Government conceded the district court had authority to rule but argued denial on the merits; the district court sua sponte dismissed the motion for failure to exhaust because the warden responded within 30 days.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the statutory exhaustion rule is non‑jurisdictional and that filing after the 30‑day lapse satisfied § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion/30‑day prerequisite is jurisdictional | The requirement is non‑jurisdictional (a claim‑processing rule) and thus waivable | District court treated it as jurisdictional and dismissed sua sponte for lack of exhaustion | Held non‑jurisdictional; cannot be raised sua sponte to strip court of authority |
| Whether Appellant satisfied the statutory threshold by filing after 30 days without pursuing administrative appeal | Filing after the lapse of 30 days from the warden’s receipt satisfies § 3582(c)(1)(A) | District court held a timely warden response within 30 days required full administrative appeal | Held the statute provides two alternatives; waiting 30 days suffices and Appellant met the threshold (filed after 149 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Marsh, 944 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2019) (non‑jurisdictional procedural limits may be waived)
- Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (distinction between jurisdictional rules and claim‑processing rules)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (Congress must do something special to make a procedural rule jurisdictional)
- United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2021) (§ 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion requirement is non‑jurisdictional)
- United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278 (9th Cir. 2021) (joins sister circuits holding § 3582(c)(1)(A) a mandatory claim‑processing rule)
- United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, not jurisdictional)
- United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020) (recognizing the alternative 30‑day route under § 3582(c)(1)(A))