United States of America v. Alonzo Ricky Hampton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 9, 2023*
Decided March 10, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2438
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALONZO RICKY HAMPTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 3:92-cr-30061-SEM
Sue E. Myerscough,
Judge.
O R D E R
Alonzo Hampton appeals the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction under
§ 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018. See Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. But
Hampton, currently detained for a different offense, has fully served the sentence at
issue in this appeal, and he does not identify any collateral consequences or possible
relief traceable to the length of that sentence. Thus, because he has not satisfied Article
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-2438 Page 2
III’s requirement of a live controversy, we vacate the judgment and remand the case
with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
In 1992, Hampton pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine
base, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment and five years’
supervised release. His sentence was later reduced, and he was released from prison in
2008. At that time, he began serving his term of supervision.
Two years later, the court revoked his supervised release after he admitted to
committing further criminal offenses. The court sentenced him to another 37 months in
prison, with no additional supervision. He completed this sentence in 2013.
In 2020, Hampton was charged in a new indictment with two counts of
possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and being a
felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See United States v. Hampton,
No. 3:20-cr-30010-SEM-KLM, R. 1-1 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2020). He pleaded guilty to three of
the counts and remains detained while awaiting trial on the fourth.
In mid-2022, Hampton petitioned for a writ of coram nobis, asserting that his
criminal history category was incorrect. The district court denied the petition.
Shortly thereafter, Hampton sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act
on grounds that his crack-cocaine conviction met the requirements of a “covered
offense” under § 404(b) of the First Step Act. The district court denied the request
because Hampton no longer was serving any portion of the pertinent sentence.
On appeal, Hampton generally challenges the district court’s First Step Act
ruling. But we lack jurisdiction to review Hampton’s appeal because he has not shown
that his challenge to his sentence presents a live controversy. United States v. Juvenile
Male, 564 U.S. 932, 936 (2011). Hampton cannot challenge his completed sentence unless
he suffers some “continuing injury” or “collateral consequence” that satisfies Article
III’s requirements. Id. (citation omitted). But by 2013, he had fully served the sentence
for his 1992 conviction, and he does not identify—nor do we see—any collateral
consequence that keeps the controversy live and allows any effectual relief. See United
States v. Shorter, 27 F.4th 572, 575 (7th Cir. 2022). An Article III case or controversy
would exist if a retroactive sentencing reduction could, in principle, afford Hampton
some relief, see United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023), but he has not

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2438 Page 3
identified any way in which a shorter sentence could benefit him in his ongoing
criminal case. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with
instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --