United States v. Scott Sherwood, 986 F.3d 951

Scott Sherwood was convicted in 2015 of transporting and possessing child pornography and sentenced to 108 months (below Guidelines).
He moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing COVID-19, age, and medical conditions as extraordinary and compelling reasons.
The government conceded Sherwood’s medical conditions met the extraordinary-and-compelling threshold but argued Sherwood remained a danger and that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against release.
The district court denied release in a two-line order relying exclusively on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2)’s requirement that the defendant not be a danger to the community, citing the transportation conviction.
The Sixth Circuit reviews denial for abuse of discretion and has held that the Sentencing Commission policy statement in § 1B1.13 is not an independent basis to deny defendant-filed compassionate-release motions.
Because the district court relied solely on § 1B1.13(2), the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the remaining § 3582(c)(1)(A) prerequisites (notably the § 3553(a) factors).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may deny a defendant-filed compassionate-release motion solely because the defendant is a danger under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2)	Sherwood argued his medical conditions and COVID-19 risks constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons and that § 3553(a) supports release	Government argued Sherwood remains a danger and § 3553(a) factors oppose release	Court held § 1B1.13 is not an independent basis for denying defendant-filed motions; reliance solely on § 1B1.13(2) requires vacatur and remand
Whether Sherwood established extraordinary and compelling reasons	Sherwood: COVID-19 plus age/medical conditions meet the threshold	Government conceded medical conditions satisfy extraordinary and compelling but disputed other factors	District court had acknowledged extraordinary-and-compelling reasons; appellate decision did not disturb that finding and remanded for § 3553(a) analysis
How § 3553(a) factors should be considered on remand	Sherwood: § 3553(a) weighs in favor of release given health risks	Government: § 3553(a) and danger to community weigh against release	On remand, district court must evaluate § 3553(a) factors in the first instance; it may consider danger as part of § 3553(a) but must explain why sentencing factors now support or oppose reduction

United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021) (held § 1B1.13 is not binding for defendant-filed compassionate-release motions)
United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098 (6th Cir. 2020) (explains standard of review and that district courts may skip step two of § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry for defendant-filed motions)
United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000 (6th Cir. 2020) (discusses § 1B1.13’s requirement that defendant not be a danger to the community)