United States of America v. Ernest F. Clark

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 28, 2024*
Decided October 30, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2487
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERNEST F. CLARK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
No. 11-CR-30-2-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
O R D E R
In this appeal from the denial of his fourth motion for compassionate release un-
der 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A), Clark contends that the district court violated the Constitu-
tion by not mentioning the latest amendment to U.S.S.G. §1B1.13, specifically
§1B1.13(b)(6), and not responding to every one of his arguments.
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2487 Page 2
One reason the judge did not address all of his arguments is that he assumed that
Clark had established a good reason for release but concluded that release is inappro-
priate in light of the statutory criteria. This enabled the court to bypass Clark’s argu-
ments about his medical conditions and the effect of subsection (b)(6), which authorizes
(but does not require) compassionate release when the sentence is long, the prisoner has
served at least ten years, and “a change in the law (other than an amendment to the
Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive)” affects that sentence. We doubt
that any “change in the law” authorizes a reduced sentence for Clark, but like the dis-
trict court we bypass that question.
The district court’s fundamental reason for denying Clark’s latest application is
that he is a vicious person whose disregard for the welfare of others requires his contin-
ued confinement to promote public safety. The judge stated that he has “zero regard for
others, for their property, or for the law.” These are permissible considerations under 18
U.S.C. §3553(a), and we do not see any abuse of discretion by the district court. For
these reasons, as well as those given in our most recent order denying Clark’s re-
quests—see United States v. Clark, No. 23-1808 (Sept. 18, 2023) (nonprecedential disposi-
tion)—the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --