The Commission's new report records a 13.6 percent grant rate
On September 9, 2026, the United States Sentencing Commission released preliminary compassionate-release data covering court decisions from October 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. Of 1,478 reported cases, 46 had an indeterminable motion status. Among the remaining 1,432 motions, courts granted 195 and denied 1,237—a grant rate of 13.6 percent.
Those numbers confirm that relief remains available but difficult. They do not establish a legal presumption, a quota, or the probability that any particular motion will succeed. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) requires an individualized decision based on the asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons, the applicable policy statement, the statutory sentencing factors, and the record before the sentencing judge.
The report is preliminary and has defined limits
The report covers the first three quarters of fiscal year 2026, not the complete fiscal year. Its data is limited to motions for which the Commission received or obtained court documentation and completed its analysis by August 25, 2026. Later decisions, delayed documents, and cases with an indeterminable status are not part of the reported outcome total.
The tables describe what happened in the collected cases; they do not determine why a different court must grant or deny a new motion. A sound case review should use the report to identify recurring issues while returning to the governing statute, USSG §1B1.13, controlling circuit law, and the particular sentencing record.
Nearly every granted motion was filed by the sentenced person
Of the 195 grants, the Commission attributes 189 to defendant-filed motions, three to Bureau of Prisons motions, two to motions by the United States, and one to a joint motion. Defendant-filed motions therefore accounted for 96.9 percent of the grants reported through the third quarter.
That distribution reflects the First Step Act's practical importance. Since 2018, a sentenced person may move directly after fully exhausting administrative appeal rights or after 30 days have passed from the warden's receipt of a request, whichever is earlier. But access to the courthouse is only the procedural doorway; it does not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons or satisfy §3553(a).
Rehabilitation helped, but never stood alone
Sentencing courts cited rehabilitation 55 times among the 308 reasons recorded for the 195 grants. The Commission expressly notes that every grant citing rehabilitation also relied on one or more additional reasons. That is consistent with §1B1.13(d), which says rehabilitation by itself is not an extraordinary and compelling reason but may be considered together with other circumstances.
The practical lesson is not to minimize rehabilitation. Disciplinary history, programming, work, education, treatment, mentoring, remorse, family support, and release planning can materially strengthen the overall record and the §3553(a) analysis. They should be documented and connected to another legally cognizable basis rather than presented as a freestanding entitlement to release.
Medical conditions and long-sentence issues appeared repeatedly in grants
The report lists serious physical or medical conditions 39 times, unusually long sentences combined with a change in law 24 times, terminal illness 23 times, and multiple §924(c) penalties 15 times among reasons supporting grants. It also records BOP failure to provide treatment 14 times, other mandatory-minimum or long-sentence concerns 14 times, and young age at the time of the offense 12 times.
These are counts of cited reasons, not counts of mutually exclusive cases. One order may rely on several circumstances, and the Commission recorded 308 reasons across 195 grants. The underlying proof still matters: diagnoses, prognosis, functional limitations, treatment records, facility capability, sentence history, changes in law, time served, conduct, and release arrangements should be tied to the exact provision invoked.
Section 3553(a) remained the most frequently recorded denial reason
For 1,237 denied motions, courts cited 2,886 reasons. The §3553(a) sentencing factors appeared 661 times, more than any other listed reason. Courts also cited rehabilitation as insufficient 368 times, the absence of an extraordinary and compelling reason 272 times, failure to exhaust administrative remedies 214 times, insufficient medical proof 189 times, and the ability to provide self-care in prison 178 times.
A motion can therefore fail even when it identifies a serious circumstance. Courts may still conclude that the nature of the offense, criminal history, time served, disciplinary record, deterrence, protection of the public, or the need to avoid unwarranted disparity weighs against a reduction. A complete filing must address both eligibility and the discretionary sentencing analysis.
The administrative request must support—not undercut—the court filing
The Commission recorded failure to exhaust as a reason in 214 denials. The statute permits a defendant-filed motion only after the required administrative step. A careful record should preserve the request sent to the warden, proof and date of receipt, any response, administrative appeals when used, and the claims actually presented.
Courts differ on whether and how closely the reasons raised in court must track the administrative request. The safest practical approach is a complete, dated request that clearly identifies the proposed extraordinary and compelling circumstances and asks the BOP to move for the requested reduction. The later motion should accurately explain the exhaustion path and attach available proof.
- Keep the signed request and reliable proof of the warden's receipt.
- Preserve every response, denial, appeal, medical attachment, and supporting declaration.
- State the factual grounds clearly enough to permit meaningful administrative review.
- Recheck the governing circuit's exhaustion law before filing in court.
- Do not treat the passage of 30 days as proof that the motion should be granted.
Geographic percentages require special caution
The report shows substantial differences among circuits and districts. For example, the Ninth Circuit recorded 33 grants in 117 decided motions, while the Seventh Circuit recorded four grants in 90 and the Eighth Circuit recorded 11 in 276. Some individual districts show very high or very low percentages based on only a handful of motions.
Those figures should not be converted into a claim that a judge or district is bound to follow a historical rate. Case mix, sample size, circuit precedent, documentation, government positions, judicial assignments, and the reasons asserted can differ sharply. The relevant comparison is the law and fact pattern of the individual case, not a raw national or district percentage.
Long original sentences were common among successful cases
Among grants with available sentence-length information, 40.5 percent involved an original sentence of at least 20 years, and another 25.8 percent involved a sentence from 10 years to less than 20 years. The report also records grants across many offense categories, including drug trafficking, robbery, firearms, murder, fraud, and other crimes.
That does not mean offense seriousness is irrelevant. Rather, the data shows that neither a long sentence nor a serious conviction categorically ends the inquiry. Courts still evaluate the complete circumstances, including time served, institutional conduct, present risk, health, changes in law, victim and public-safety considerations, and whether the proposed reduction remains sufficient but not greater than necessary.
A persuasive record answers the reasons courts repeatedly deny relief
The new data points to a practical structure for review. First, establish a procedurally valid route into court. Second, document a reason recognized by §1B1.13 or controlling law. Third, explain why the evidence is current, reliable, and materially different from ordinary prison hardship. Fourth, address §3553(a), danger, release conditions, and every foreseeable counterargument.
The most useful filing is not the longest one. It is the one that organizes verified records around the legal questions the sentencing judge must decide. Unsupported medical conclusions, incomplete exhaustion proof, generic rehabilitation claims, and a release plan that does not address supervision, treatment, housing, employment, or public safety leave predictable gaps.
The report does not replace Fernandez, Rutherford, or individualized law
The Commission's report measures decisions made through June 30, 2026. It does not itself alter §3582(c)(1)(A), create a new extraordinary and compelling reason, or resolve the legal limits announced in later appellate decisions. The governing law must be checked as of the filing date, including any circuit-specific treatment of changes in law and USSG §1B1.13.
Statistics can identify patterns and recurring failure points. They cannot determine whether a particular medical condition qualifies, whether a sentence disparity is legally cognizable, whether exhaustion is satisfied, how a plea or prior ruling affects the motion, or how the sentencing factors apply to one person's current circumstances.
Limits and caution
The preliminary FY2026 report records 195 grants and 1,237 denials among 1,432 motions with known outcomes through the third quarter. It shows that compassionate release remains an individualized and demanding remedy, with recurring attention to §3553(a), supporting proof, exhaustion, medical circumstances, rehabilitation, sentence length, and public safety.
This article provides general educational information, not legal advice, a prediction, a deadline calculation, or a conclusion that any person qualifies for release. The judgment, sentencing transcript, medical and BOP records, administrative request, disciplinary history, release plan, prior motions, government responses, and controlling law must be reviewed for the individual matter.