United States of America v. Paul Vasquez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 24, 2023*
Decided November 7, 2023
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2817
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PAUL VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 16 CR 463-5
Virginia M. Kendall,
Judge.
O R D E R
Paul Vasquez, a federal prisoner, appeals the judgment denying his motion for
compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the district court did not
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-2817 Page 2
abuse its discretion in concluding that Vasquez failed to establish an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release, we affirm.
In 2018, Vasquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit racketeering activity,
18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to engage in the unlawful transfer of a firearm.
Id. § 371. The district court sentenced him to 176 months in prison and 3 years’
supervised release.
Vasquez sought compassionate release in 2022. He asserted that he faced
extraordinary conditions warranting release, including his medical conditions (anxiety,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis of the knees, and type 2 diabetes); the
physical harm wrought by having COVID-19 twice without adequate care; and an
unstable family situation that, without his help, likely would lead to his orphaned
grandson being placed in foster care. As evidence of his rehabilitation, he pointed to his
completion of educational programs in prison.
The district court denied Vasquez’s motion, determining that his health
conditions and family difficulties were not extraordinary and compelling reasons to
warrant compassionate release. Vasquez, the court noted, did not show that he needed
assistance with medical self-care, that contracting COVID twice compromised his
health, or that his grandson had no other potential caregivers. And even if Vasquez
could demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the court added, the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors—specifically, the “random and senseless[ly] violent” nature
of his offenses and his extensive and brutal criminal history—weighed against release.
On appeal, Vasquez maintains that his health conditions (which, he asserts, are
not being adequately addressed in prison) and his family situation are extraordinary
and compelling reasons for release. But Vasquez has the burden of proving that these
circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary and compelling to warrant release,
see United States v. Barbee, 25 F.4th 531, 533 (7th Cir. 2022), and the court reasonably
concluded that Vasquez did not meet this burden. The court noted there was no
evidence Vasquez was the only family member available to care for his grandson, and it
highlighted evidence that he could care for his own medical needs. In any event, the
court’s § 3553(a) analysis provides an independent basis for us to affirm. The court
appropriately determined that Vasquez’s rehabilitation efforts did not outweigh his
violent conduct, and that early release would not advance the purposes of sentencing or
meet the goals of the criminal justice system. Either reason is enough to deny
compassionate release. See United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2817 Page 3
Finally, Vasquez renews his request for counsel. Because counsel is not necessary
to resolve the issues Vasquez raises on appeal, we deny this request. See Pruitt v. Mote,
503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --