Background
James Troiano is serving a 24-year sentence for Hobbs Act conspiracy and robbery, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. A jury convicted him in 2006 after he and a co-defendant robbed a Hawaii liquor and convenience store, taking cash from a safe and ATM and assaulting and holding the store owner at gunpoint.
Troiano sought compassionate release in 2024 under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that four later Guidelines amendments, if all applied, would lower his total advisory range from 360 months to life to 176 to 199 months. Three of the changes were nonretroactive, including the removal of generic burglary as a career-offender predicate. The district court denied relief, concluding that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 bars treating nonretroactive Guidelines amendments as extraordinary and compelling reasons.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that the Sentencing Commission acted within its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) when it adopted U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) and (c), which prohibit courts from considering nonretroactive Guidelines amendments when deciding whether extraordinary and compelling reasons support compassionate release.
The court rejected Troiano’s contention that § 994(t) permits the Commission only to identify qualifying reasons, not to exclude reasons from consideration. It also held that § 1B1.13’s reference to a nonretroactive “amendment” encompasses multiple amendments. Thus, a defendant may not rely on the combined effect of several nonretroactive Guidelines changes to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons. Having resolved that threshold issue against Troiano, the court did not reach his challenge to the district court’s alternative § 3553(a) analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Section 1B1.13 validly bars compassionate-release claims premised on nonretroactive Guidelines amendments.
- The bar applies whether the defendant relies on one amendment or the cumulative effect of several amendments.
- Courts may deny compassionate release when the defendant fails to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons, without reaching the § 3553(a) factors.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that, in the Ninth Circuit, the current compassionate-release policy statement is binding and restricts relief based on nonretroactive Guidelines changes. Sentencing disparities resulting from such amendments cannot establish eligibility for a sentence reduction, even where their combined application would materially lower the defendant’s current advisory range.