Opinion
23-2389
06-17-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TYRAN PATTON, Defendant-Appellant.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
Submitted June 14, 2024 [*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 13 CR 239 Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge.
Before MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge JOSHUA p. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
ORDER
Tyran patton appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court erred when it ignored the evidence in support of his motion and did not adequately consider the extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release or the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Patton first moved for compassionate release in June 2020, about 4 years into his 20-year sentence for participating in a drug distribution conspiracy. He argued that early release was necessary because he suffered from seasonal allergies that made him more susceptible to complications from COVID-19. The district court denied the motion because Patton had not exhausted his administrative remedies. After complying with the exhaustion requirements, Patton submitted a new motion, reasserting his argument about allergies and COVID-19. The district court denied this motion, too, concluding that Patton's allergies did not increase his risk of harm from COVID-19 as an otherwise young, relatively healthy inmate. The court further noted that the § 3553(a) factors did not support Patton's early release, explaining that he had served less than half of his sentence, and his significant criminal history and recidivism risk made him a danger to the public. Patton appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as untimely. United States v. Patton, No. 21-2171 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2021).
In 2023, Patton filed another motion for compassionate release that is the subject of this appeal. He alleged that he was suffering from new medical issues, including repeated seizures, headaches, fainting, breathing difficulties, and a bout of COVID-19 that resulted in his hospitalization. In addition, Patton argued that his extensive rehabilitation while in prison supported early release. For example, he noted that his prison unit team recommended that he be released on home confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022, and that he had no disciplinary issues, completed multiple prison courses, and maintained consistent employment in prison. Finally, he pointed out that the statutory mandatory minimum applied at the time of his sentencing had since decreased, and, given that his release date is now in 2029 (apparently because of credits), he had served more than half of his sentence.
The court again denied his motion. The judge explained that Patton failed to provide the exhibits he referred to in his motion that allegedly substantiated his history of seizures. The court instead looked to the exhibits provided by the government in its response to Patton's second motion for compassionate release in 2020, which referred to one instance of a possible seizure. Regardless, the court noted, Patton failed to provide any evidence of a general deterioration of his health while he was incarcerated or that the Bureau of Prisons did not adequately treat his health issues. The court commended Patton for his rehabilitative efforts in prison, but explained that rehabilitation is a goal of incarceration, not an exceptional reason for early release. Finally, after considering the seriousness of his offense and previous recidivism, the court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not support early release.
On appeal, Patton argues that the district court overlooked the medical exhibits he provided in support of his motion for compassionate release. He attached several medical records to his 2023 motion, including notes related to his hospitalization for complications from COVID-19 in 2021, which state that Patton had a seizure at the prison and that he had a history of seizures and a possible seizure disorder. The records also include portions of medical documents from 2020, which include a medical services report where Patton complained that he had a seizure in the past and was suffering from headaches, nausea, and shortness of breath.
But even if the district court possibly missed these exhibits, any oversight was harmless. The medical records are consistent with the district court's conclusion that Patton's health was not generally deteriorating and that he was receiving adequate care in prison. The records show one instance of a seizure in 2021 that occurred coincident with a COVID-19 infection and pneumonia. Patton was effectively treated at a local hospital. The records from 2020 are incomplete and reveal only that Patton complained of past seizures and symptoms he believed were consistent with a possible oncoming seizure.
Next, Patton argues that the district court wrongly concluded that a change in his statute of conviction did not make him eligible for early release. Though he is correct that, if he were sentenced today, a 15-year mandatory minimum (rather than a 20-year minimum) would apply, we have held that this kind of non-retroactive change to statutory sentencing laws cannot on its own amount to an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release. United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th 569, 576 (7th Cir. 2021).
Patton next asserts that the district court did not adequately consider that he experienced police brutality as a child, which led to brain injuries that later made him susceptible to seizures and chronic headaches. But Patton waived this argument by failing to present it to the district court. See Fednav Int'l Ltd. v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 624 F.3d 834, 841 (7th Cir. 2010).
At all events, the court adequately explained why release was inappropriate under § 3553(a), even if the evidence Patton provided showed an extraordinary and compelling basis for release. See United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022). Specifically, the court stated that reducing by six years Patton's sentence, given the seriousness of his offense and previous recidivism, would not promote respect for the law or provide adequate deterrence. And, the court noted, nothing in Patton's motion altered its conclusion in 2020 that he remained a danger to the public. Although Patton argues that the district court's discussion was inadequate, a court need not consider the § 3553(a) factors at length. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021).
To the extent that Patton argues that his unit team's 2022 recommendation that he be released on home confinement contradicts the district court's conclusion that he remains a danger to the public, he is mistaken. Despite the recommendation, the Bureau of Prisons did not release Patton on home confinement. In any event, an inmate released on home confinement has not received a reduced sentence; he remains in the custody of the Bureau and is still serving a term of imprisonment. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021).
Finally, Patton cites in his brief the Sentencing Commission's 2023 amendments to the Guidelines, which permit some defendants to seek early release based on intervening changes to constitutional or criminal law. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Patton did not raise any argument about this amendment in the district court. Indeed, the amendment did not take effect until November 1, 2023, ten months after Patton filed his motion for compassionate release. Moreover, the amendments limit eligibility to defendants who, among other things, have served at least ten years of their sentences, which Patton has not done.
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).