United States of America v. L. C. Richardson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 20, 2024*
Decided September 20, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2323
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
L. C. RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 16-cr-40019-JPG
J. Phil Gilbert,
Judge.
O R D E R
L. C. Richardson, a federal prisoner housed in West Virginia, appeals the denial
of his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.
In 1998, Richardson was sentenced to 327 months’ imprisonment for federal drug
crimes, along with 20 years’ imprisonment for first-degree murder. He was released in
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-2323 Page 2
2016. Later that year, he pleaded guilty to multiple firearm and drug offenses,
see 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and for those crimes
now is serving a 20-year sentence.
In 2023, Richardson moved for compassionate release on four grounds: (1) His
wife’s health was declining, so he needed to be the caregiver; (2) his mental health
deteriorated significantly after the recent death of his adult-aged daughter; (3) he had
medical conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, sleep apnea, obesity, and
back problems, many of which heighten his risk of a severe COVID-19 infection or heart
failure; and (4) he had rehabilitated himself, as reflected by his completion of multiple
prison programs.
The district court denied Richardson’s motion. The court noted that Richardson
had been vaccinated against COVID-19 and thus was at a significantly lower risk of
severe complications from the disease. The court added, based on its review of
Richardson’s medical records, that he appeared to be receiving adequate care for his
conditions, which did not increase his risk of contracting COVID-19 and were not
extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release. Finally, the court determined
that release was not justified under the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)—including the seriousness of Richardson’s offense and his extensive criminal
history (violent offenses such as first-degree murder, as well as fourteen infractions in
prison).
Richardson later asked to file additional evidence about his worsening back
condition and the prison’s failure to administer all his medication. The district court
construed the request as a motion to reconsider, which the court then denied. The court
concluded that it did not misapprehend the issues presented, and Richardson did not
point to any significant change in law or discovery of new facts to warrant
reconsideration.
On appeal, Richardson contends that we should consider his § 3582(c) motion
under the Sentencing Commission’s revised policy statement in the latest version of the
Sentencing Guidelines. That policy statement permits some defendants to seek early
release based on medical circumstances requiring long-term or specialized care that is
not being provided, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1) (effective Nov. 1, 2023); the incapacitation
of a spouse when the defendant would be the only available caregiver,
see id. § 1B1.13(b)(3); or any other circumstances similar in gravity, see id. § 1B1.13(b)(5).
Richardson highlights the substandard medical care he received in prison and his wife’s
deteriorating health.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2323 Page 3
The district court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion. The revised
policy statement went into effect in November 2023, nine months after Richardson had
filed his motion. We generally apply the version of the guidelines in effect at the time of
the district court’s sentencing, see United States v. Claybron, 88 F.4th 1226, 1230–31
(7th Cir. 2023); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a); see also United States v. Handlon, 97 F.4th 829, 833
(11th Cir. 2024) (November 2023 revisions to § 1B1.13 do not have retroactive effect).
Regardless, courts need identify “just one good reason” to deny compassionate
release, see United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022), and here the district
court explained that (1) Richardson’s health conditions did not qualify as extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting early release, and (2) the § 3553(a) factors,
particularly the seriousness of his offense and extensive criminal history, weighed
against release.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --