United States v. Thomas Bryant, Jr., 996 F.3d 1243

Background

Thomas Bryant, a former police officer, was convicted of drug- and gun-related offenses and received a very long aggregate sentence; he sought compassionate-release relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) after the First Step Act (FSA).
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (the Sentencing Commission policy statement) defines "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction and includes four categories in its commentary; Application Note 1(D) covers "other reasons" expressly prefaced "As determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons."
The First Step Act (2018) amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow defendants (after limited exhaustion) to file compassionate-release motions, whereas previously only the BOP Director could move.
Bryant moved for release based on sentencing changes and rehabilitation; the government argued Bryant’s reasons did not meet 1B1.13; the district court denied the motion citing the government’s brief.
On appeal the Eleventh Circuit addressed two central legal questions created by FSA: (1) whether § 1B1.13 remains an "applicable policy statement" binding courts for defendant-filed § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions; and (2) whether Application Note 1(D)’s "as determined by the Director of the BOP" requirement is incompatible with the FSA and thus must be read to permit court determinations.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held § 1B1.13 is an applicable, binding policy statement for all § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions and that Application Note 1(D) does not authorize courts to substitute their own open-ended determination for the BOP-based clause; Bryant’s motion failed under 1B1.13.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bryant)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is an "applicable policy statement" for defendant-filed § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions	1B1.13 is inapplicable to defendant-filed motions because its text repeatedly references motions "upon motion of the Director of the BOP" (pre‑FSA)	1B1.13 implements the statutory mandate to define "extraordinary and compelling" and remains "applicable" (i.e., binding) regardless who files the motion	Held: § 1B1.13 is an applicable, binding policy statement for all § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions
Whether Application Note 1(D)’s phrase "As determined by the Director of the [BOP]" conflicts with the FSA so courts may themselves define "other" extraordinary and compelling reasons	The FSA removed BOP gatekeeping; AN1(D) conflicts with the amended statute and the BOP reference should be read out so courts can identify other reasons	FSA only expanded who may file; it did not displace the Commission’s substantive definition or confer on courts free-roving authority to redefine "extraordinary and compelling"	Held: AN1(D) does not conflict with the amended statute; courts may not replace the BOP clause with a court-determined standard; courts must apply 1B1.13
Whether Bryant’s specific grounds (sentencing changes, trial vs plea disparity, rehabilitation) qualify under 1B1.13	These factors, alone or combined, are extraordinary and compelling (unfairness from new sentencing law; disparity; rehabilitation)	These grounds do not fit the four categories in 1B1.13 and thus cannot justify release	Held: Bryant’s reasons do not meet § 1B1.13 and the district court’s denial is affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (policy statements must be "consistent with" and binding on courts when statute so requires)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (Guidelines commentary is the legal equivalent of the guideline text)
United States v. Colon, 707 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.) (Commission’s policy statements are binding for § 3582 sentence‑reduction eligibility)
United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (held § 1B1.13 not "applicable" to defendant‑filed motions)
United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (same conclusion as Brooker)
United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (similar view that § 1B1.13 is not binding for defendant‑filed motions)