The Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied William Baskerville's appeal for compassionate release from federal prison, affirming a district court's rejection of his motion for sentence reduction under federal law.
The appeals court issued its non-precedential opinion on January 8, 2026, in *United States v. William Baskerville* (Nos. 23-1460 and 23-2753). Circuit Judges Restrepo, Freeman, and McKee heard the case, with Judge McKee writing the opinion.
Baskerville had appealed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and requested amendments to correct alleged clerical errors in his judgment of conviction and Presentence Investigation Report.
The case stems from serious federal charges filed in 2003. In 2007, a jury found Baskerville guilty of conspiring to murder a witness, conspiring to retaliate against an informant, and eight drug trafficking offenses. The district court sentenced him to nine concurrent terms of life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the charges involving witness intimidation and extensive drug trafficking.
Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) allows federal courts to reduce sentences in extraordinary and compelling circumstances. The provision, originally requiring approval from the Bureau of Prisons, was expanded under the First Step Act of 2018 to allow inmates to petition courts directly after exhausting administrative remedies or waiting 30 days.
The Third Circuit's decision to affirm the district court's denial suggests that Baskerville failed to demonstrate the extraordinary and compelling circumstances required for compassionate release. Courts typically consider factors such as terminal illness, advanced age with declining health, family circumstances, or other unusual situations that could not have been anticipated at sentencing.
The First Step Act, signed into law in December 2018, represents the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in decades. Beyond expanding compassionate release eligibility, the act includes provisions for earned time credits, reforms to mandatory minimums, and rehabilitation programs. Baskerville's request for sentence reduction under this act was also denied by both the district court and the appeals court.
While the Third Circuit partially vacated the district court's order regarding Baskerville's motion to amend his judgment and Presentence Investigation Report, the court affirmed the denial of his primary requests for release or sentence reduction. This suggests that while there may have been some procedural issues with the clerical error corrections, the substantive legal arguments for release were unsuccessful.
The opinion is marked as "NOT PRECEDENTIAL," meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent for future cases. Under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 5.7, such dispositions do not constitute binding precedent, though they may be cited for their persuasive value.
District Judge Peter G. Sheridan of the District of New Jersey presided over the original proceedings. The case was submitted to the Third Circuit under Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a) on September 29, 2025, indicating it was decided without oral argument.
Baskerville's case illustrates the challenges facing long-term federal inmates seeking relief through compassionate release provisions. Despite the expanded opportunities created by the First Step Act, courts maintain strict standards for granting such motions, particularly in cases involving serious violent crimes and witness intimidation.
The denial of compassionate release in cases involving life sentences for violent crimes reflects judicial caution in balancing rehabilitation and public safety concerns. Courts must weigh individual circumstances against the original sentencing considerations, including the need for deterrence and protection of the community.
The case also highlights the ongoing impact of federal sentencing policies from the early 2000s, when mandatory minimums and harsh penalties for drug and violent crimes were more commonly imposed. While recent reforms have provided some avenues for sentence modification, the success rate for such motions remains limited, particularly for inmates serving life sentences for serious violent offenses.
Baskerville's unsuccessful appeal demonstrates that even with expanded compassionate release provisions, federal courts continue to apply rigorous standards when evaluating requests from inmates serving lengthy sentences for serious crimes involving violence and witness tampering.
The Third Circuit's decision leaves Baskerville's life sentences intact, though the partial vacation of the district court's order on clerical errors suggests some limited procedural relief may still be available. The case represents another example of federal courts carefully scrutinizing compassionate release requests while maintaining the integrity of serious criminal sentences.