United States of America v. Jessie L. Traylor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 5, 2023*
Decided April 6, 2023
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2807
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESSIE L. TRAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 08-cr-20036
Michael M. Mihm,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jessie Traylor, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court rejected his
arguments that a change in the law governing a predicate offense used to enhance his
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-2807 Page 2
original sentence, and the denial of a petition for habeas corpus based on that change,
were extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. We affirm.
Traylor is serving a sentence for a 2009 conviction for conspiring to distribute
and to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846, 841. Because of two prior convictions for felony drug offenses, he was sentenced
to a then-mandatory term of life in prison. Id. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2009). We affirmed his
convictions and sentences, United States v. Traylor, 405 F. App'x 73 (7th Cir. 2011), and
his first motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied, Traylor v. United States, No. 12-CV-
2001, 2012 WL 4760721, at *3 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2012). In January 2017, his sentence was
reduced to 240 months’ imprisonment through a presidential grant of clemency.
After our decision in Najera-Rodriguez v. Barr, 926 F.3d 343, 347 (7th Cir. 2019),
Traylor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that his
sentence was unlawful because his prior Illinois drug-possession conviction is not a
“felony drug offense” under § 841(b)(1)(A). The petition—filed in the district where he
was then in custody—was denied, and the decision was summarily affirmed. See Traylor
v. Knight, No. 22-6647, 2023 WL 356035 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2023).
While that Fourth Circuit appeal was pending, Traylor moved for compassionate
release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He asserted that he no longer qualifies for an enhanced
sentence and that his habeas petition raising this argument had been wrongly denied.
The district court concluded that neither reason supported an early release. (It also
found that Traylor had not exhausted his administrative remedies, but the government
now withdraws that defense.)
Traylor argues again on appeal that he is entitled to early release because his
statutory sentencing enhancement is invalid under current law. But we have repeatedly
rejected the argument that new judicial decisions or non-retroactive statutory changes
are grounds for compassionate release. Such developments are “the ordinary business
of the legal system,” United States v. King, 40 F.4th 594, 595 (7th Cir. 2022), and so
“purely legal contention[s]” based on these changes are not “extraordinary and
compelling.” United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023). Therefore, the
district court determined correctly that Traylor was not entitled to relief.
Finally, because we cannot review the decisions of courts in another circuit, we
do not address Traylor’s remaining arguments about his habeas petition.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --