United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120

Anthony Saladino pleaded guilty in 2018 to racketeering and cocaine distribution conspiracies and was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment.
On April 17, 2020, he moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing COVID-19 and medical conditions.
At the district-court hearing Saladino conceded he had not exhausted BOP administrative remedies; the government argued exhaustion was non-waivable and the district court denied the motion as lacking jurisdiction.
While the appeal was pending Saladino filed (then withdrew) a second motion showing additional exhaustion steps; the government later withdrew its exhaustion defense on appeal, stating Saladino has exhausted.
The Second Circuit held § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but a claim-processing rule that the government may waive.
The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for consideration of Saladino’s motion on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional	Saladino: the district court erred treating exhaustion as jurisdictional and thus refusing to reach the merits	Government: exhaustion is non-waivable and jurisdictional (bar to court consideration)	Court: Not jurisdictional; it is a claim-processing rule that can be waived by the government
Whether courts may excuse failure to exhaust on equitable grounds over a timely government objection	Saladino: district court could excuse exhaustion for futility/equity	Government: statutory exhaustion is mandatory and cannot be excused	Court: If government properly invokes the statutory exhaustion requirement, courts may not dispense with it; but here government waived its defense so merits may be considered

Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (legislative clarity required to make a procedural prescription jurisdictional)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from waivable claim-processing rules)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (where Congress mandates exhaustion, courts may not add equitable exceptions)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (statutory exhaustion requirements cannot be overridden by futility exceptions)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (recognizing judge-made exceptions to exhaustion such as futility in non-statutory contexts)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (distinguishing jurisdictional language from nonjurisdictional pleading requirements)
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (courts cannot rewrite statutory text imposing procedural requirements)
United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing the shift of discretion to courts when BOP does not timely act)