United States of America v. Jarmarco O. Moore

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 24, 2023*
Decided October 25, 2023
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JARMARCO O. MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 21-10023
James E. Shadid,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jarmarco Moore, a federal prisoner, filed two motions for compassionate release.
The district court denied both, concluding that Moore had not offered extraordinary
and compelling reasons for early release and, alternatively, that release was not justified
under the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We affirm.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1651 Page 2
Moore pleaded guilty in April 2022 to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court, in sentencing him to 110 months’
imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release, found that he had unlawfully possessed
ten firearms and enlisted his teenage daughter to hide two of them (plus some cocaine)
from investigators. The court also stressed Moore’s past crimes involving burglary and
drugs.
Ten months later, Moore submitted his first motion for compassionate release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In it, he cited several health issues—
obesity, high cholesterol and blood pressure, asthma, gastrointestinal discomfort, and
poor circulation—and asserted a grave risk of serious infection from COVID-19. (He did
not address whether he had received vaccines.) He also explained that his girlfriend,
who was his children’s caregiver when he was sentenced, had herself been imprisoned
in the meantime, causing some children to live with grandparents who struggled to
furnish care. While that motion was pending, Moore filed a second one raising a variety
of constitutional and statutory-interpretation challenges to his conviction and sentence.
In a single order, the sentencing judge denied both motions, for two independent
reasons. First, Moore had not identified extraordinary and compelling circumstances to
warrant early release. Second, and in any event, Moore’s criminal history, his handling
of several guns as a felon, and his decision to involve family members (including a
minor) in his crimes meant early release would wrongly “deprecate the seriousness of
the offense.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (outlining sentencing factors); United States v.
Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021) (permitting court to deny release under
§ 3553(a) factors even if circumstances are otherwise extraordinary and compelling).
On appeal, Moore references his medical conditions and explains that a recent
COVID-19 infection made him “sicker for longer than the normal timeframe.” He adds
that he unsuccessfully sought vaccines in prison, although he omitted that detail in the
district court. He insists that his children need his care, and that the district court
underestimated his potential by failing to confirm his employment history and business
dealings. And he reargues the lawfulness of his original conviction and sentence.
But even if Moore’s medical conditions and caregiver obligations could, on a
fuller record, count as extraordinary and compelling circumstances, his appellate briefs
do not undermine the district court’s alternative basis for denying his motions: the
§ 3553(a) factors, especially his criminal history and the seriousness of his conduct. As a
rule, the § 3553(a) factors can provide “an independent basis” for denying early release.
United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023). We review the district court’s

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1651 Page 3
application of the § 3553(a) factors for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Kurzynowski, 17 F.4th 756, 759 (7th Cir. 2021). Given Moore’s criminal history (burglary
and drug sales) and the seriousness of this offense (involving ten guns and the use of
his teenage daughter to conceal contraband), we see no abuse of discretion here. To be
sure, Moore now contests the basis for the district court’s findings and rulings at the
original sentencing, but in a compassionate-release proceeding, a district court need not
reopen those matters. See United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 465 (7th Cir. 2022). One
good reason suffices to deny compassionate release, United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595,
598 (7th Cir. 2021), and the district court had one here.
As for Moore’s challenges to his conviction and sentence, our precedents have
held that these kinds of claims must be raised in a direct appeal or collateral attack
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, if at all—not in a motion for compassionate release. Williams,
65 F.4th at 347; United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023). Indeed, the
district court has denied Moore’s § 2255 motion, and his request for a certificate of
appealability is pending in No. 23-2372. We express no view on that request.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --