United States of America v. Bishop Higgins

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 12, 2025*
Decided August 12, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2756
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BISHOP HIGGINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:21-cr-00002-JRS-CMM-1
James R. Sweeney II,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Bishop Higgins, a federal prisoner, appeals from an order denying
compassionate release. The district court determined that, even if Higgins established
extraordinary and compelling circumstances, the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) weighed against 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2756 Page 2
Higgins was charged in 2021 with possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams
or more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), and possessing a firearm in
furtherance of that drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). After pleading
guilty, Higgins was sentenced in January 2022 to 248 months’ imprisonment and
5 years’ supervised release.
Higgins moved for compassionate release in June 2024. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). In support of his claim that extraordinary and compelling circumstances
warranted that relief, he pointed to his mother’s need for his around-the-clock care (she
is in her early 80s and is disabled from an automobile accident) and his own extensive
health problems (he has a history of cardiovascular issues, diabetes, obesity, and
asthma).
The district court denied Higgins’s motion. The court assumed without deciding
that he had established extraordinary and compelling reasons but determined that the
§ 3553(a) factors counseled against early release. The court explained that Higgins had
committed a serious offense (transporting enough methamphetamine for thousands of
users), had “an extensive criminal history” (including prior drug-related and violent
offenses), and had served fewer than 4 years of his 248-month prison sentence.
In his opening brief, Higgins reiterated that he is the sole caretaker for his mother
but did not challenge the district court’s evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors. Had the
Government raised it, this waiver would be dispositive, as we generally do not consider
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Johnson, 43 F.4th
771, 784 n.10 (7th Cir. 2022). But the Government has not asked us to affirm on that
basis.
In any event, Higgins’s arguments in reply regarding the § 3553(a) factors would
be unavailing, even if properly presented. He contends that the court did not consider
circumstances that had changed after his sentencing, but he does not identify anything
that the district court overlooked. The court was not required to discuss every factual
matter. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021). And although Higgins
generally contests the district court’s conclusions about the seriousness of his offense
and the amount of time he has served, the court needed only “one good reason” to deny
the motion. Id. The court based its decision, in part, on Higgins’s extensive criminal
history, which he does not contest.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --