United States of America v. Daniel Montez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 4, 2023*
Decided May 12, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1988
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL MONTEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 12 CR 755-8
Ronald A. Guzmán,
Judge.
O R D E R
The district court denied Daniel Montez’s motion for compassionate release and
motion to amend it based largely on the seriousness of Montez’s criminal history.
Because the court sufficiently weighed the factors under 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-1988 Page 2
A jury found Montez guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. See
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Relying in part on the seriousness of Montez’s prior convictions
for murder and aggravated battery of a law-enforcement officer, the district court
sentenced him in 2016 to 210 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
Since August 2020, Montez has filed multiple compassionate-release motions
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In the motion relevant to this appeal, Montez asserted
as his “extraordinary and compelling reason” for relief his medical conditions—
including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity—that, he maintained, increased his risk
of a severe COVID-19 infection. He also contended that, independent of the pandemic,
release was warranted because blood was appearing in his stool, and the Bureau of
Prisons was not treating it. Lastly, he argued that his rehabilitation efforts and family
circumstances justified a reduced sentence.
The district court denied the motion, first ruling that Montez did not establish an
extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. The court explained that
the Bureau of Prisons could treat all his medical conditions and that he had received
two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir.
2021) (prisoners who can benefit from vaccine cannot rely on pandemic to justify
reduced sentence). His rehabilitative efforts and desire to see his family also were not
extraordinary and compelling compared to other prisoners’ similar circumstances. The
court further ruled that, even with an extraordinary and compelling reason, early
release would be “unwarranted” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Incorporating its reasons for
denying the previous compassionate-release requests, the court explained that reducing
Montez’s sentence despite his serious criminal history would not promote respect for
the law, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, or provide just punishment.
Almost five months later and before he received the court’s ruling, Montez filed
a “motion to amend” the compassionate-release request that he believed was still
pending. He asked about its status and provided more information about his untreated
bloody stool and his rehabilitation (he was enrolled in several courses and employed in
the prison’s dining room). The court denied the motion, saying that even taking
Montez’s updates into consideration, it would not grant an early release for the reasons
stated in the prior order.
Montez filed a notice of appeal. The government argued that it was timely only
with respect to the denial of the motion to amend, not the underlying request for
compassionate release. We agreed and limited the scope of the appeal accordingly.
Doc. 11, Order of Nov. 2, 2022.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1988 Page 3
In his opening brief, Montez reargues that his notice of appeal was timely as to
the denial of his compassionate-release motion. The government responds that Montez
thus waived any argument on the merits, but Montez explains in his reply brief that he
was confused about which issue was before us and then sets forth his arguments on the
merits. Given Montez’s pro se status and his confusion about our prior orders, we will
address the merits—which is our preferred approach. Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361
(7th Cir. 2022). We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 562 (7th Cir. 2022).
Montez argues that the district court improperly ignored the new evidence of his
post-sentencing rehabilitation and medical problem that he included in his motion to
amend, but the court reasonably concluded that the new information, even if credited,
did not change its prior ruling. Rehabilitation alone cannot be extraordinary and
compelling. United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2022). And the court was
not obligated to conclude that his purported rehabilitation tipped the scales when
combined with other grounds. See United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1073 (7th Cir.
2023) (“[T]he discretion to evaluate multiple circumstances resides principally in the
district courts.”). In addition, Montez’s more recent medical issue can be addressed
through vehicles other than compassionate release. See United States v. Bridgewater,
995 F.3d 591, 599 (7th Cir. 2021).
In any case, the district court also concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not
favor release irrespective of the new information Montez provided. The court explained
that Montez’s serious criminal history—including convictions for murder and battery of
a police officer—would make a reduced sentence incompatible with several sentencing
factors even considering the new information about his health and rehabilitation. This
decision was reasonable. See Rucker, 27 F.4th at 563. Contrary to Montez’s arguments,
more explanation of this reasoning was not required. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th
595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021).
We have considered Montez’s other arguments, but none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --