Opinion
22-3165
06-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID D. MAJOR, Defendant-Appellant.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted June 15 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 19-10014 James E. Shadid, Judge.
Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
ORDER
David Major, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the district judge permissibly ruled that Major's health problems did not justify his release, we affirm.
In September 2020 after Major pleaded guilty to distributing heroin and fentanyl, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the judge sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 20 years in prison. Central to the judge's ruling was Major's role in-and failure to accept responsibility for-causing the fatal overdose of a young woman. We affirmed the sentence. United States v. Major, 33 F.4th 370 (7th Cir. 2022).
While his direct appeal was pending, Major told the judge that he was "very ill" and asked for compassionate release. Major withdrew his motion but later refiled one seeking relief based on his lung disease, asthma, malnutrition, and need for a feeding tube. The judge denied the motion, explaining that Major's pending direct appeal involved issues similar to those that the court must analyze under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when deciding his motion for release.
After Major lost his direct appeal, he filed (with the assistance of a public defender) his latest motion for compassionate release. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons medical center, where Major was held, provided him with inadequate medical care. Specifically, Major was losing weight because he was consuming only liquids through his feeding tubes, and the BOP had not provided him with a surgical procedure that would enable him to eat solid foods. Major also asserted that his medical conditions made him vulnerable to COVID-19 and that he had been rehabilitated while in prison, having remained discipline free.
The judge denied Major's motion. The judge noted that he had considered Major's serious medical conditions at sentencing just two years earlier and that they were "not life threatening or end of life issues" because medical records showed that he remained "ambulatory and able to provide self-care." The judge also noted that Major was vaccinated against COVID-19 and had not established how he was unable to benefit from the vaccine. See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021). The judge then concluded that Major's leadership role in distributing drugs, some of which led to the fatal overdose of the young woman, further weighed against release just three years into his 20-year sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).
Major argues on appeal that the judge failed to account for his medical vulnerabilities. But the judge reasonably based his "factual conclusions on record evidence," United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 2021), having considered Major's medical records showing that he was ambulatory and able to care for himself. We defer to the judge's weighing of the evidence, United States v. Manning, 5 F.4th 803, 807-08 (7th Cir. 2021), and denying Major's request for compassionate release, despite his poor health, was not an abuse of discretion.
Major next argues that the judge "failed to take into account" his good conduct in prison. Rehabilitation alone is not a reason for compassionate release, United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2022), but judges should consider reasons for compassionate release cumulatively, United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1072-73 (7th Cir. 2023). Even if the judge here did not explicitly address Major's rehabilitation in combination with his health problems, any oversight was harmless because the judge proceeded to analyze the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which provide an independent basis for us to affirm. United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023). The judge ruled, for instance, that releasing Major would "deprecate the seriousness of the offense" given his prominent role in trafficking drugs that killed a young woman. See § 3553(a)(2)(A). And just one good reason suffices to deny a compassionate-release motion. United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021).
Finally, Major revives arguments from his direct appeal regarding his role in causing the young woman's death, his failure to accept responsibility, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. But we already decided those issues, and in any event, he may not use a motion for compassionate release to challenge potential sentencing errors. United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED
We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. p. 34(a)(2)(C).