I have never filed a federal compassionate-release motion. What is the structure?

Step one: the administrative-exhaustion prerequisite

Before the merits, there is the threshold. Before the court can hear a defendant-filed motion, the statute requires that the defendant either fully exhaust administrative rights to appeal the Bureau of Prisons' failure to move, or that 30 days lapse from the warden's receipt of a request to move on the defendant's behalf, whichever is earlier. In practice the request to the warden of the defendant's current facility is the first document in the file, and the 30-day clock runs from its receipt. The exhaustion showing is proved in the motion with the request and the date it reached the warden, so the threshold is met on the record before the merits are reached. The statute’s own words condition a defendant-filed motion on “the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier”.

Exhaustion language quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Cornell Legal Information Institute). The statute controls; confirm the current text before relying on any phrasing.

Step two: the extraordinary-and-compelling reasons

The statute permits a reduction only where extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant it and the reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. The policy statement enumerates the categories below. Each is named by its subheading and mapped to the showing a defender makes. No case is cited on these rows: the category list is the guideline’s.

• § 1B1.13(b)(1) Medical Circumstances of the Defendant

  The medical category reaches a terminal illness with an end-of-life trajectory, a serious condition that substantially diminishes the ability to provide self-care in the facility, a need for long-term or specialized care that the facility is not providing where the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration, and heightened risk from an ongoing infectious-disease outbreak or public-health emergency. The showing is built from the facility's own medical records, the requested and unmet care, and where warranted an independent medical opinion.

• § 1B1.13(b)(2) Age of the Defendant

  The age category reaches a defendant of a threshold age who is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process and has served a threshold portion of the term. The showing pairs the medical record documenting the age-related decline with the sentence-computation record establishing the portion of the term served, both of which are matters for confirmation against the current guideline text.

• § 1B1.13(b)(3) Family Circumstances of the Defendant

  The family category reaches the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child, a child of any age incapable of self-care because of a disability, the incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver, and a similar circumstance involving an immediate family member the defendant would be the only available caregiver for. The showing documents the caregiving vacancy and that no alternative caregiver is available.

• § 1B1.13(b)(4) Victim of Abuse

  The abuse category reaches a defendant who was the victim of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse in custody committed by or at the direction of a correctional officer or facility employee, where the abuse is established by a conviction, a finding in a related proceeding, or an admission, subject to the conditions the policy statement sets. The showing rests on the record establishing the abuse rather than on the defendant's account alone.

• § 1B1.13(b)(5) Other Reasons

  The catch-all reaches any other circumstance or combination of circumstances that, taken alone or together with a category above, is similar in gravity to the enumerated grounds. It is not a lower standard: the gravity comparison is the test, and the showing frames the combination of circumstances against the seriousness of the specified categories rather than treating the catch-all as an open-ended equity.

• § 1B1.13(b)(6) Unusually Long Sentence

  The unusually-long-sentence category reaches a defendant who has served a threshold portion of an unusually long sentence where a change in the law produces a gross disparity between the sentence being served and what would be imposed today, subject to the conditions and the full-and-individualized-consideration requirement the policy statement sets. The showing pairs the sentence-computation record with the specific change in the law and the disparity it produces, all of which are matters for confirmation against the current guideline text and the law of the circuit.

Every category subheading above quoted from USSG § 1B1.13 (United States Sentencing Commission, Amendment 814). The policy statement and the controlling circuit law evolve; confirm the current text before relying on any category.

Step three: the danger determination and the § 3553(a) re-weighing

The extraordinary-and-compelling showing is not the whole motion. Two further gates sit alongside it: the policy statement’s danger determination, and the § 3553(a) re-weighing the statute commands. Each is a general drafting stance keyed to its own official source.

• § 1B1.13(a) The danger determination

  The policy statement requires the court to determine that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The motion addresses this affirmatively rather than leaving it for the government to raise: the record of institutional conduct, programming, disciplinary history, age, and the release plan is marshalled to show the § 3142(g) factors do not bar a reduction. This gate is separate from the extraordinary-and-compelling showing and is not satisfied by it.

• § 3582(c)(1)(A) The § 3553(a) re-weighing

  The statute permits a reduction only after the court considers the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable. The motion does not treat the original sentence as fixed: it re-argues the § 3553(a) factors on the record as it stands today, including the time served, the post-sentencing rehabilitation record, and the changed circumstances, so the court can weigh a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary as of the motion rather than as of the original judgment.

The danger determination is from USSG § 1B1.13; the § 3553(a) consideration is from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Confirm the current authority in your circuit before relying on either.

The structure of the written motion

The written motion has a documented shape. Each section below is a drafting step, stated generally; the extraordinary-and-compelling section is where the controlling authority is marshalled, and that authority is a matter for your own research on the facts and the circuit.

• 1. The exhaustion showing

  The opening establishes the threshold on the record: the request to the warden of the defendant's current facility, the date it was received, and the exhaustion or the lapse of 30 days, whichever came first. The court cannot reach the merits until this is shown, so it is stated first and proved with the attached request and dated proof of receipt.

• 2. The extraordinary-and-compelling reasons

  The heart of the motion, organized by the § 1B1.13(b) category the case falls in. The category is named, the facts are placed within it, and the record is cited: the medical records, the caregiving vacancy, the change in the law, or the combination of circumstances the catch-all reaches. Where more than one category applies, each is briefed and the combination is framed against the gravity standard.

• 3. The danger determination

  A dedicated section answering the § 1B1.13(a) requirement that the defendant not be a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community. The institutional conduct record, programming, disciplinary history, and the specific release plan are marshalled here so the § 3142(g) inquiry is answered before the government frames it.

• 4. The § 3553(a) re-weighing

  The section that re-argues the sentencing factors as of the motion. The time served, the post-sentencing rehabilitation record, and the changed circumstances are weighed against a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary today, so the reduction is grounded in the factors the statute makes the court reconsider rather than in equity alone.

• 5. The relief requested

  The specific reduction sought, stated concretely: a reduction to time served, a reduction to a stated term, or a modification of the conditions, with the requested sentence quantified rather than left to the court. The request ties back to the category most heavily relied on and to the § 3553(a) re-weighing, and it proposes the supervised-release conditions that make the release plan concrete.

What the motion attaches

The motion is built on a record, and the record is gathered against the category the case falls in. Each item below is a general assembly step; nothing here is asserted to satisfy any standard, and what a document proves is a matter for your own judgment on the facts.

• 1. The request to the warden and dated proof of receipt

  The document that starts the 30-day clock and the proof of when the warden received it. This is the exhaustion showing, so it is the first thing gathered and the first thing attached.

• 2. The Bureau of Prisons medical and disciplinary records

  The facility's own records supporting a medical or age category and establishing the institutional-conduct record the danger determination rests on. Requested early because the records lag the request.

• 3. The independent medical or expert opinion, where warranted

  Where the medical or age category turns on a prognosis or an unmet-care finding, an independent opinion that reads the facility records rather than restating them. Gathered only where the category needs it.

• 4. The category-specific documentation

  The caregiving-vacancy documentation for a family circumstance, the record of the change in the law for an unusually-long-sentence claim, or the finding establishing abuse in custody. The document that places the case in its § 1B1.13(b) category.

• 5. The release plan

  A concrete plan for where the defendant will live, how they will be supported, and what supervision conditions apply. The release plan does double duty: it answers the danger determination and it gives the § 3553(a) re-weighing something specific to weigh.

Turn the structure into the filed motion

The motion is only as strong as the record behind it, so the assembly runs early: the request to the warden is filed first because it starts the clock and proves exhaustion, the Bureau of Prisons medical and disciplinary records are requested early because they lag the request, the category-specific documentation is gathered against the § 1B1.13(b) ground the case falls in, and the release plan is drafted alongside the danger determination it answers. The motion is filed against a sentence already being served, so the record is built to show both the extraordinary-and-compelling ground and that a reduction is consistent with the § 3553(a) factors as they stand today.

This framework is the shape of the motion. The Compassionate Release research pack is the source-cited depth product built to ground it: the USSG § 1B1.13 category map, the exhaustion and documentation fields, and the Sentencing Commission data the motion reads against, each carrying its source. The § 3553(a) re-weighing the reduction shares with a sentencing memo is documented in the free federal sentencing-memo framework.

Reference

For the source-cited depth product that grounds the motion, see the Compassionate Release research pack. For the § 3553(a) re-weighing the reduction shares with a sentencing memo, use the free federal sentencing-memo framework, and for the comparables brief behind the disparity argument, the Sentencing Snapshot. The exhaustion requirement is quoted from 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the categories from USSG § 1B1.13; verify the current statute, the current policy statement, and the controlling case law in your circuit before relying on any of it.