United States of America v. David D. Major

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 15, 2023*
Decided June 21, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 22-3165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID D. MAJOR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 19-10014
James E. Shadid,
Judge.
O R D E R
David Major, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the district judge
permissibly ruled that Major’s health problems did not justify his 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 22-3165 Page 2
In September 2020 after Major pleaded guilty to distributing heroin and fentanyl,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the judge sentenced him within the Guidelines range to 20 years in
prison. Central to the judge’s ruling was Major’s role in—and failure to accept
responsibility for—causing the fatal overdose of a young woman. We affirmed the
sentence. United States v. Major, 33 F.4th 370 (7th Cir. 2022).
While his direct appeal was pending, Major told the judge that he was “very ill”
and asked for compassionate release. Major withdrew his motion but later refiled one
seeking relief based on his lung disease, asthma, malnutrition, and need for a feeding
tube. The judge denied the motion, explaining that Major’s pending direct appeal
involved issues similar to those that the court must analyze under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
when deciding his motion for release.
After Major lost his direct appeal, he filed (with the assistance of a public
defender) his latest motion for compassionate release. He argued that the Bureau of
Prisons medical center, where Major was held, provided him with inadequate medical
care. Specifically, Major was losing weight because he was consuming only liquids
through his feeding tubes, and the BOP had not provided him with a surgical
procedure that would enable him to eat solid foods. Major also asserted that his medical
conditions made him vulnerable to COVID-19 and that he had been rehabilitated while
in prison, having remained discipline free.
The judge denied Major’s motion. The judge noted that he had considered
Major’s serious medical conditions at sentencing just two years earlier and that they
were “not life threatening or end of life issues” because medical records showed that he
remained “ambulatory and able to provide self-care.” The judge also noted that Major
was vaccinated against COVID-19 and had not established how he was unable to
benefit from the vaccine. See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021).
The judge then concluded that Major’s leadership role in distributing drugs, some of
which led to the fatal overdose of the young woman, further weighed against release
just three years into his 20-year sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2).
Major argues on appeal that the judge failed to account for his medical
vulnerabilities. But the judge reasonably based his “factual conclusions on record
evidence,” United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 490 (7th Cir. 2021), having considered
Major’s medical records showing that he was ambulatory and able to care for himself.
We defer to the judge’s weighing of the evidence, United States v. Manning, 5 F.4th 803,

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-3165 Page 3
807–08 (7th Cir. 2021), and denying Major’s request for compassionate release, despite
his poor health, was not an abuse of discretion.
Major next argues that the judge “failed to take into account” his good conduct in
prison. Rehabilitation alone is not a reason for compassionate release, United States v.
Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2022), but judges should consider reasons for
compassionate release cumulatively, United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1072–73 (7th
Cir. 2023). Even if the judge here did not explicitly address Major’s rehabilitation in
combination with his health problems, any oversight was harmless because the judge
proceeded to analyze the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which provide an independent
basis for us to affirm. United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023). The
judge ruled, for instance, that releasing Major would “deprecate the seriousness of the
offense” given his prominent role in trafficking drugs that killed a young woman.
See § 3553(a)(2)(A). And just one good reason suffices to deny a compassionate-release
motion. United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021).
Finally, Major revives arguments from his direct appeal regarding his role in
causing the young woman’s death, his failure to accept responsibility, and the
substantive reasonableness of his sentence. But we already decided those issues, and in
any event, he may not use a motion for compassionate release to challenge potential
sentencing errors. United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --