Motion for compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A); The First Step Act; USSG § 1B1.13 as amended; The “catch-all” provision (§ 1B1.13(b)(5)); Whether the disparity between crack & powder cocaine sentences constitutes an “extraordinary & compelling circumstance”; Rehabilitation as a basis for relief; 28 USC § 994(t)

The court held that defendant-Washington’s challenges to Congress’s sentencing scheme for crack versus powder cocaine did not constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to grant his motion for compassionate release. Thus, it affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion. Washington pled guilty to possession of crack cocaine with the intent to distribute and to using a firearm in a drug-trafficking crime and was sentenced as a career offender to 280 months. After his motions for post-conviction relief were denied, he unsuccessfully filed multiple motions for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). This was his fourth. The court noted that the U.S. Sentencing Commission set forth the grounds for compassionate release in its amendments to § 1B1.13, and modified the “catch-all” provision, § 1B1.13(b)(5), upon which Washington based his claim. He argued that “the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences—set by Congress at a ratio of 18:1—is an extraordinary and compelling circumstance justifying release.” However, the court explained that the enumerated grounds generally focus on “circumstances personal to the defendant or his family.” The court concluded that “even though the consequences of the crack-to-powder disparity may be ‘grave,’ the catch-all provision is not a home for complaints that the generally applicable penalties set by Congress are too harsh.” While Washington also argued that his age and mental health could constitute grounds for compassionate release, this claim was forfeited where he did not raise these grounds in the district court. As for his claim based on his rehabilitation efforts, the court commended his efforts but agreed with the district court that they did not support a reduction. Pursuant to § 994(t), a defendant’s rehabilitation “‘alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason’ for a sentence reduction.”