United States of America v. Jerry K. Partee

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 1, 2022*
Decided April 4, 2022
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 20-2863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERRY K. PARTEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Western Division.
No. 00 CR 50049
Philip G. Reinhard,
Judge.
O R D E R
More than halfway through his 34-year sentence for drug distribution, Jerry
Partee moved for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-
391, 132 Stat. 5194, on grounds that he was convicted of a “covered offense” within the
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 20-2863 Page 2
meaning of § 404. He alternatively sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) based on medical conditions (obesity, osteoarthritis, and
hyperlipidemia) that he believed put him at great risk of complications during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The district court denied relief. The judge ruled that Partee was eligible for a
reduction under the First Step Act, but the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—
particularly his extensive disciplinary history in prison and the seriousness of his prior
criminal history—did not favor a reduced sentence. And after acknowledging Partee’s
health concerns, the judge similarly denied the motion for compassionate release based
on the § 3553(a) factors.
On appeal, Partee challenges only the denial of his motion under the First Step
Act. But he does not develop a coherent legal argument or engage the district judge’s
reasons for denying the motion. See F ED. R. APP . P. 28(a)(8); White v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins.
Co., No. 20-1803, 2022 WL 59403 at *1 (7th Cir. Jan. 6, 2022). Regardless, the judge acted
well within his broad discretion to determine that the identified § 3553(a) factors
weighed against a sentence reduction.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --