United States of America v. Jarmarco O. Moore

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 26, 2024 *
Decided March 1, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2919
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-cr-10023
James E. Shadid,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jarmarco Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district judge’s denial of his
third motion for compassionate release. Because he raises no extraordinary and
compelling reason for early release, 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. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2919 Page 2
Moore pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g),
and in 2022 was sentenced to 110 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release.
He filed a direct appeal but soon dismissed it voluntarily. He also filed two motions for
compassionate release, which the judge denied in a single order. We affirmed. United
States v. Moore, No. 23-1651, 2023 WL 7018292 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023).
In the meantime, Moore filed a third motion for compassionate release, the one at
issue here. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. He argued that his § 922(g)
conviction violates his Second Amendment rights under New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), a decision addressing New York’s gun-licensing
regime. He also claimed that the sentencing record was too thin to support the
attribution of ten guns to him. Finally, he highlighted his rehabilitation efforts in prison,
his plans to support himself if released early, and the nonviolent character of his past
crimes. The judge denied the motion, reasoning that Moore could not use
compassionate release as a vehicle to challenge the validity of his original conviction
and sentence, and that Moore’s remaining arguments about rehabilitation and
nonviolence were not extraordinary and compelling grounds for early release.
On appeal Moore renews his contentions. But as the judge recognized, we have
held that a motion for compassionate release cannot be used as a substitute for a direct
appeal or collateral attack; so, with one exception that does not apply to Moore, claims
about the validity of the original conviction or sentence cannot count toward a finding
of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 465
(7th Cir. 2022); United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 347–49 (7th Cir. 2023). The
exception arises under the Sentencing Commission’s 2023 amendments to the
Guidelines, which permits some defendants to seek early release based on intervening
changes in constitutional or criminal law. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). But the amendments
limit eligibility to defendants who (among other things) have served at least ten years of
their sentence, which Moore has not done.
Moore’s remaining arguments do not present extraordinary and compelling
reasons for compassionate release. His nonviolent criminal history was a topic to
consider at his 2022 sentencing or in a direct appeal, not a factor that can itself trigger
eligibility for early release. See Brock, 39 F.4th at 465. And although Moore’s release plan
might bear on the discretionary decision whether to grant relief if he had identified
some extraordinary and compelling reason that made him eligible, no authority known
to us suggests that a release plan can itself trigger eligibility. Meanwhile, Moore’s
efforts to rehabilitate himself by taking classes while incarcerated are “common rather

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2919 Page 3
than extraordinary.” United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1072 (7th Cir. 2023). Indeed,
rehabilitation alone could not present an extraordinary and compelling reason.
28 U.S.C. § 994(t); United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2022). The judge did
not abuse his discretion in concluding that Moore’s criminal history, evidence of
rehabilitation, and release plan—even in combination—are not extraordinary and
compelling grounds for early release. See Vaughn, 62 F.4th at 1073 (holding that the
discretionary weighing of combined circumstances “resides principally in the district
courts,” subject only to deferential appellate review).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --