United States of America v. Javier Hernandez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 3, 2025*
Decided December 4, 2025
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1868
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAVIER HERNANDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 1:05-CR-10062-JEH-1
Jonathan E. Hawley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Javier Hernandez, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the district court did
not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 25-1868 Page 2
In 2006, Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine and
cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. Hernandez was initially
sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment; in 2015 the district court reduced his sentence
to a 324-month term after a retroactive change to his Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2).
Since then, Hernandez has moved twice for compassionate release. The district
court denied the first motion in 2023 because Hernandez failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Nevertheless, on a request to reconsider, the court addressed
the merits of Hernandez’s motion and concluded that Hernandez’s arguments—that he
was 58 years old and had served 18 years, that he wished to care for his elderly mother
after the rest of his family passed away, and that he was at an increased risk of
COVID-19—did not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying
compassionate release. Further, the court found the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
including the seriousness of Hernandez’s offense, weighed against his early release.
Hernandez’s appeal from that order was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
See No. 23-3203 (7th Cir. Dec. 27, 2023).
A year later, Hernandez filed another motion for compassionate release in which
he advanced similar arguments that his age, progress toward rehabilitation, and desire
to spend time with his few remaining family members warranted release. He also
asserted that changes in the statutory and Guidelines sentencing ranges for his offense
justified a reduced sentence. The district court denied the motion, relying on its
previous rejection of his family- and health-related arguments and its resolution of the
§ 3553(a) factors. Hernandez again appealed.
On appeal, Hernandez maintains that unspecified changes in the law and in the
Sentencing Guidelines have rendered his sentence disproportionate. Non-retroactive
changes to the Sentencing Guidelines, however, are expressly excluded as a basis for
compassionate release in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), (c). Regardless, even if these
Guidelines changes, other changes in law, or his health and family circumstances could
present an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction, the district
court permissibly denied relief based on the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021).
The district court had previously determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed
against Hernandez’s release, and he raised no new arguments on these factors in his
latest motion. The court reasoned that release was not warranted because Hernandez
had trafficked over 200 kilograms of cocaine throughout Illinois as the “chief person” in

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1868 Page 3
a distribution network. The court also observed that Hernandez’s sentence was already
on the lower end of the sentencing range, so reducing it further would deprecate the
seriousness of the offense and undermine the values of deterrence and respect for the
law. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)–(B). Hernandez does not offer any reason why either of
these conclusions was an abuse of the district court’s broad discretion. Without such an
argument, we are compelled to affirm the district court’s judgment because the
§ 3553(a) analysis is sufficient to uphold its denial of relief. See United States v. Sarno,
37 F.4th 1249, 1253 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --