United States of America v. Adrian Curtis

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 15, 2023 *
Decided June 16, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1110
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ADRIAN CURTIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 1:04-cr-10016
Joe Billy McDade,
Judge.
O R D E R
Adrian Curtis admitted distributing drugs while on supervised release for a
federal drug-trafficking conviction. The district judge revoked his supervised release
and sentenced him to prison. Curtis then moved for a sentence reduction based on his
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1110 Page 2
medical conditions, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), but the judge denied relief. Because the judge
reasonably weighed the sentencing factors, we affirm.
Curtis pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), in the Central District of Illinois. After serving his prison
sentence, he began a 10-year term of supervised release in 2015.
Within a few years, Curtis was involved in distributing drugs again, and in 2020
he was indicted, this time in the Northern District of Illinois, for conspiracy to distribute
cocaine. Curtis’s conduct also violated the conditions of supervised release associated
with his sentence in this case. As a result, his probation officer petitioned to revoke his
supervision, and Curtis admitted the violation. The judge revoked his supervision and
sentenced him to 37 months’ reimprisonment with no further supervised release to
follow. In the separate prosecution, Curtis pleaded guilty to the drug conspiracy, and
the judge there sentenced him to 60 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to the
revocation sentence. See United States v. Curtis, No. 1:20-CR-00130(4) (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11,
2023).
About one year into his revocation sentence (and before the other sentence was
imposed), Curtis, through appointed counsel, moved for compassionate release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that he had an “extraordinary and compelling”
reason for release in the form of numerous health conditions—including type I diabetes,
obesity, pancreatitis, ulcerative colitis (inflammation and ulcers in the large intestine),
and kidney disease (he represented it as “advanced stage kidney failure,” while his
medical records describe it as “chronic kidney disease, stage 2 (mild)”). He also
contended that the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favored release because
his health conditions now made his sentence unduly harsh. His family and friends also
wrote letters on his behalf.
The district judge denied the motion. The judge used the Sentencing Guidelines’
policy statement about compassionate release as a nonbinding reference and reasoned
that Curtis had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for release because
he had not submitted any medical evidence showing that his illnesses “substantially
diminishe[d his] ability … to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional
facility.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). And even if Curtis had proven an extraordinary
and compelling reason, the judge continued, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did
not favor release. Curtis’s ongoing criminal history (possessing controlled substances to
distribute them while on supervision) showed that Curtis has an “evolving penchant”

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1110 Page 3
for drug trafficking, and the existing sentence was needed to reflect the seriousness of
the offense and deter Curtis from further criminal activity. The judge further said that
releasing Curtis after serving only one-third of his revocation sentence would not
provide just punishment or promote respect for the law.
On appeal, we understand Curtis to argue that, in denying compassionate
release, the judge unreasonably weighed the § 3553(a) factors, in part, because Curtis
has been rehabilitated. He explains that he is “remorseful” and thus able to “lead a law-
abiding life” outside of prison.
The judge, however, appropriately exercised his discretion here. He reasonably
concluded that Curtis’s ongoing drug-related criminal history counseled against a
reduced sentence, especially because Curtis had conspired to distribute drugs while on
supervised release for a drug-conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th
1249, 1253 (7th Cir. 2022) (considering criminal history appropriate use of discretion).
Further, district judges are allowed to consider how much time remains on a sentence,
and the judge here permissibly concluded that excusing Curtis from two-thirds of his
sentence would not promote respect for the law. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d
1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). Curtis’s focus on his rehabilitation amounts to a request that
we reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, but that is not our role. United States v. De La Torre,
940 F.3d 938, 954 (7th Cir. 2019).
Curtis also argues that his medical conditions, including kidney disease, create
an extraordinary and compelling reason for release because they make his incarceration
“significantly more difficult and significantly more dangerous.” But any challenge to
the assessment of Curtis’s health concerns is immaterial because the judge adequately
explained why his view of the § 3553(a) factors would not produce a favorable exercise
of discretion. United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --