United States of America v. Anthony William Corish

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_________________
No. 25-1554
_________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANTHONY WILLIAM CORISH,
Appellant
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00316-001)
District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
February 13, 2026
Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, and McKEE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: March 23, 2026)
______________
OPINION*
______________
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Anthony Corish appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth
below, we will affirm the District Court’s order.1
We review the District Court’s denial of Corish’s motion for compassionate
release for abuse of discretion.2 “Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will not
disturb the court’s determination unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that it committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.”3 A
compassionate release motion may be granted if a court determines “that the sentence
reduction is (1) warranted by ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’; (2) ‘consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission’; and (3) supported by
the traditional sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are
applicable.”4 The District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that neither
extraordinary and compelling reasons nor the § 3553(a) factors warranted compassionate
release.
In his motion, Corish argued that he was entitled to compassionate release under
USSG § 1B1.13(b)5 based on the following circumstances considered together or alone:
(1) his father’s need for physical and financial assistance; (2) his serious medical
1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2 United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021).
3 Id. (citation modified).
4 Id. at 258 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
5 The United States Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy statement regarding
compassionate release, USSG § 1B1.13(b), provides a list of extraordinary and
compelling reasons for a reduction in a term of imprisonment.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
condition that resulted from an inmate attack a correctional officer allegedly encouraged;
(3) his unusually long sentence; and (4) his rehabilitation. However, Corish
acknowledged in his reply brief that his father is not incapacitated, he does not have a
serious medical condition, and he may not have received an unusually long sentence. The
District Court concluded that none of Corish’s circumstances were extraordinary and
compelling under USSG § 1B1.13(b)(1)(A)–(C), (b)(3)(C), (b)(6). In addition, the
District Court held that the § 3553(a) factors—the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to afford
adequate deterrence—weighed against a grant of compassionate release.
On appeal, Corish contends that the District Court erred by failing to consider
whether extraordinary and compelling reasons existed for his release under USSG §
1B1.13(b)(4)(B) or (b)(5). Under USSG § 1B1.13(b)(4)(B), an extraordinary and
compelling reason exists when a defendant during his term of custody was a victim of
“physical abuse resulting in ‘serious bodily injury,’ . . . that was committed by, or at the
direction of, a correctional officer.”6 Generally, to satisfy this provision, “the misconduct
must be established by a conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability
in a civil case, or a finding in an administrative proceeding.”7 Corish is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under USSG § 1B1.13(b)(4)(B) because he has not provided any
proof that a correctional officer directed the inmate attack and was criminally convicted
or found liable. Additionally, he is not eligible under USSG § 1B1.13(b)(5), a catch-all
6 USSG § 1B1.13(b)(4)(B).
7 Id.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
provision which provides that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist in “any other
circumstance or combination of circumstances that, when considered by themselves or
together with any of the reasons” enumerated by the policy statement “are similar in
gravity” to those enumerated.8 Corish concedes that he does not have a serious medical
condition and his father is not incapacitated; he offers no other circumstances that in
combination or alone are extraordinary and compelling.9
Even if Corish had established that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists
for his release, we would still affirm the District Court’s denial of his compassionate
release motion because it did not abuse its discretion in holding that the § 3553(a) factors
weigh against a sentence reduction. In 2010, Corish pled guilty in state court to
involuntary deviate sexual intercourse with a child and other offenses relating to his
sexual abuse of a child when she was between nine and twelve years old. Less than a year
later, he pled guilty to the instant offense of possession of child pornography, which
included videos and images of prepubescent minors. The District Court was within its
discretion to determine that the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of
8 USSG § 1B1.13(b)(5).
9 The catch-all provision involves consideration of circumstances enumerated “in
paragraphs (1) through (4)” of USSG § 1B1.13(b). USSG § 1B1.13(b)(5). Accordingly, it
does not encompass consideration of whether Corish’s sentence was “unusually long” as
defined in USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6). Regardless, USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) is inapplicable
because Corish has not established “a change in law . . . [that] would produce a gross
disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the
time the motion [wa]s filed.” Corish conceded as much by acknowledging that he may
not have received an unusually long sentence.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, and to afford
adequate deterrence, weighed against Corish’s release.
Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of Corish’s motion for
compassionate release.

-- 5 of 5 --