Compassionate Release Reversed: The Eleventh Circuit Says Prosecutors Can Appeal a Sentence Reduction and Reinstate the Original Term

A South Florida federal judge cut a 39-year sentence to 24 years in 2024, and the man it belonged to walked out of federal prison that December. On October 27, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to vacate that reduction and reinstate the original sentence imposed in August 1997. The published opinion does two things every federal defendant in Florida, Georgia and Alabama should understand. It confirms that the government can appeal a compassionate-release grant. And it applies the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Rutherford v. United States to undo a reduction that had already sent someone home.

On October 27, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit directed the district court to vacate a compassionate-release reduction and reinstate a sentence imposed in August 1997.

Key Takeaways

• On October 27, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit held prosecutors may appeal a compassionate-release grant as a sentence imposed in violation of law, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(1).
• Under Rutherford, a non-retroactive change to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) stacking cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
• Sentencing Commission policy statement § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid to the extent it treats non-retroactive changes in law as grounds for a reduction.
• Anyone in the Southern or Middle District of Florida released on a change-in-law theory, or facing a government appeal, needs counsel reviewing the order now.
• After Rutherford, the sentence imposed at the front end is far harder to fix later, which makes plea and sentencing strategy decisive.

What the Eleventh Circuit Decided

The case started in 1996 with a fifteen-defendant superseding indictment in the Southern District of Florida. The charges were a cocaine conspiracy, Hobbs Act robberies of drug dealers, and two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for carrying a firearm during those crimes. A jury convicted on every count. Under the law in 1997, the second § 924(c) count carried a mandatory 20-year consecutive term even though both counts came in the same prosecution. The total was 468 months.

Congress changed that rule in the First Step Act of 2018. A first-time offender convicted of two § 924(c) counts in one case no longer receives the stacked enhancement. Congress made the change apply to people not yet sentenced. It did not make it retroactive for people already serving time.

Under the law in 1997, the second § 924(c) count carried a mandatory 20-year consecutive term even though both counts came in the same prosecution. The total was 468 months.

In 2024 the defendant moved for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), relying on the Sentencing Commission's 2023 policy statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). That provision said a change in the law could support an extraordinary and compelling reason where a defendant had served at least ten years of an unusually long sentence and the change produced a gross disparity. The district court agreed, cut the second § 924(c) term from 20 years to 5, and the Bureau of Prisons released him on December 6, 2024.

The government appealed. While the appeal sat, the Supreme Court decided Rutherford on May 28, 2026, holding that a non-retroactive change to § 924(c) cannot qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason as a matter of law, and that § 1B1.13(b)(6) is invalid to the extent it says otherwise. The Eleventh Circuit applied Rutherford, reversed, and directed the district court to reinstate the 1997 sentence.

The Jurisdiction Ruling Is the Part That Will Travel

The merits outcome was predictable once Rutherford came down. The more consequential holding is about who gets to appeal. The defense argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over a government appeal from a compassionate-release order. The panel noted that the Eleventh Circuit had never squarely decided the question, then held it did not matter whether jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or on 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b). Under either route the government needs a final order and one of the § 3742(b) grounds. A reduction order is final because it leaves nothing to do but execute the judgment, and a purely legal claim that the court lacked authority to reduce satisfies the "in violation of law" ground.

This one was briefed in 2025, stayed for Rutherford, argued in September 2026 and decided in October 2026, nearly two years after the release.

Who Is Exposed Right Now

Rutherford closed the change-in-law door for § 924(c) stacking, and its reasoning is broader than that one statute. As the Eleventh Circuit quoted it, when Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive, the fact that an older sentence is longer than a new one would be is not an extraordinary and compelling reason. That logic reaches other non-retroactive changes, including drug mandatory minimums under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The groups with the most at stake:

• People released on a § 1B1.13(b)(6) theory whose cases are still on appeal. This decision is the template for reversal.
• People whose reductions were granted on mixed grounds, such as a change in law plus rehabilitation or family circumstances. The question becomes whether the remaining grounds stand on their own under 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), which says rehabilitation alone is not enough.
• People with pending motions built on sentencing disparity. Those motions need to be rebuilt around the categories that survive: terminal illness, serious medical decline, qualifying age, and family-caregiver circumstances.

The government does not argue abuse of discretion. It argues the court had no legal authority to act, which draws de novo review.

The opinion also shows how the government frames these appeals. It does not argue abuse of discretion. It argues the court had no legal authority to act, which draws de novo review and avoids the deference district judges normally receive on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) findings.

Critical Mistakes People Make After a Reduction

• Treating the release date as final. If the government filed a notice of appeal, the reduction is provisional until the appeal ends.
• Letting appointed or pro se appellate briefing go unexamined. The jurisdiction question in this case was carried with the merits for almost two years. Preserved arguments about the government's right to appeal, and about independent grounds for the reduction, are what remain once the change-in-law theory is gone.
• Filing the wrong vehicle. A legal attack on the conviction belongs in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, with its one-year clock, not in a compassionate-release motion. Mixing the two produces findings a defendant has to live with later.
• Ignoring the front end. The lesson of Rutherford is not limited to people already in prison.

What This Means for Anyone Facing Federal Charges Today

For two decades, defendants and their lawyers could assume that a sentence that later looked excessive might be corrected. Congress changes mandatory minimums. After the First Step Act, compassionate release seemed to offer a path back to the sentencing judge. Rutherford and this decision narrow that path considerably. The sentence imposed on day one is much closer to the sentence served.

The sentence imposed on day one is much closer to the sentence served.

That shifts the weight of a federal case to the work done before indictment and before sentencing. A federal criminal defense attorney's best opportunities come early: in pre-charge negotiation with the AUSA over which counts are filed, in decisions about whether to stack § 924(c) or other mandatory counts, in the sentencing guidelines calculation, in PSR objections, and in a well-built 3553(a) variance argument. In white collar matters charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 or 18 U.S.C. § 1347, the equivalent fights are loss amount, role, and sophisticated-means enhancements. Those are front-end decisions. Back-end relief is now the exception.

Why Timing Matters

If you or a family member received a reduction based on a change in law, find out today whether the government appealed and where that appeal stands. If a motion is pending on a disparity theory, it needs to be reviewed against Rutherford before the court rules. If you are under investigation or have received a letter from a U.S. Attorney's Office, the time to shape the charges and the guideline exposure is now, while the decisions are still open. Federal investigation defense is front-loaded by design, and this decision makes that more true.

Common Questions

Facing Federal Charges or a Sentencing Question in Florida?

AMC Defense Law represents people under federal investigation, defendants facing federal charges, and families working through post-conviction options, in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and nationwide. If you received a target letter, a grand jury subpoena, or a government notice of appeal from a sentence reduction, a confidential consultation can identify the decisions that are still open and the deadlines that apply. Contact AMC Defense Law to schedule one.

Aaron M. Cohen represents people under federal investigation, defendants facing federal charges, and families working through post-conviction options in Florida and nationwide.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested or contacted by federal investigators, call Aaron M. Cohen, 24 hours a day to get help.

About the author. Aaron M. Cohen is the founder and principal attorney of AMC Defense Law, a criminal defense firm in Boca Raton, Florida, with more than 30 years of experience in state and federal courts. He is admitted to practice in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Texas. He appears pro hac vice in other federal districts nationwide. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute matters, DME and telemedicine fraud, peptide and compounded-drug enforcement, controlled-substance and drug conspiracy cases, financial crimes, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with AMC Defense Law or Aaron M. Cohen. Every federal case turns on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.