United States of America v. Randy Sawyer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 16, 2024*
Decided January 24, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1934
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RANDY SAWYER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Terre Haute Division.
No. 2:12-cr-00031-JRS-CMM-01
James R. Sweeney II,
Judge.
O R D E R
Randy Sawyer, a federal prisoner, filed consecutive motions for compassionate
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district judge denied Sawyer’s second
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1934 Page 2
motion and then denied his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction to review only
the denial of the latter motion, and we affirm.
In 2013 Sawyer pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with intent
to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 851,
and being a felon in possession of ammunition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The judge
sentenced him to 20 years in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
In 2020 Sawyer moved for compassionate release, arguing that his diabetes,
along with the conditions at his prison, placed him at a higher risk of contracting
COVID-19 and experiencing serious illness. The judge denied the motion. In doing so
the judge assumed that Sawyer’s medical condition was extraordinary and compelling
but nonetheless concluded that the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against
early release because, among other things, Sawyer’s criminal enterprise was extensive
and dangerous, and he had committed the offenses while on parole from another
conviction. Sawyer appealed the decision but later dismissed the appeal voluntarily.
Soon thereafter in September 2021, Sawyer again moved for compassionate
release. This time he raised a new reason for early release: that his minor child’s
caregiver had health problems that prevented her from continuing to care for the child.
He also asserted that new variants of COVID-19 put him at greater risk of experiencing
serious illness.
On July 19, 2022, the judge denied this motion as well, finding that Sawyer had
not established an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. As the judge
explained, Sawyer had introduced insufficient evidence to show that (1) he was the only
person who could care for his child; (2) he could not benefit from the COVID-19
vaccination he had received; or (3) he was more at risk for an adverse outcome in prison
than he would be if released. And even if Sawyer had presented an extraordinary and
compelling reason, the judge ruled—as he had in Sawyer’s prior motion—that the
§ 3553(a) factors counseled against release.
Sawyer moved for reconsideration on August 22, 2022. He argued that his due-
process rights were violated when the judge permitted the government to submit an
untimely response to his compassionate-release motion. Sawyer also contended that the
judge had subjected him to “double punishment” by considering the § 3553(a) factors
when ruling on the motion. And he pointed to the disparity between the sentence he
received and the sentence he would have faced under current law.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1934 Page 3
The judge denied the motion for reconsideration on April 13, 2023, pointing out
that courts may deny a compassionate-release motion without a government response.
Regardless of any response filed by the government, the judge said, he would have
reached the same decision: Sawyer had not established an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release and, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors—particularly his
extensive criminal history—weighed against early release.
Sawyer filed a notice of appeal on May 16, more than nine months late for an
appeal from the July 19, 2022 order denying compassionate release and at least 12 days
late for an appeal from the April 13, 2023 order denying reconsideration. We ordered
Sawyer to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. He then filed a
motion in the district court seeking an extension of time to appeal the April 13
reconsideration decision. The judge granted the motion. After both parties submitted
jurisdictional statements, we limited the appeal to the reconsideration order. We review
that order for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th 1249, 1253 (7th Cir.
2022).
Sawyer asserts that the level of care he is receiving in prison is inadequate to
protect him from COVID-19; that prison conditions have created an overly harsh
sentence; that the § 3553(a) factors, properly weighed, favor his release; and that
changes in sentencing law—combined with an unusually long sentence—warrant a
review of his sentence. But the judge acted well within his discretion by declining to
reconsider his earlier rejection of these contentions. See id. The judge had merely to
evaluate the § 3553(a) sentencing factors and identify “just one good reason” to deny
compassionate release. United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, the
judge provided one: that early release was outweighed by Sawyer’s numerous prior
convictions.1
AFFIRMED
1 We acknowledge the Sentencing Commission’s amendments to the Guidelines
that took effect on November 1, 2023, and expanded the list of “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” that may warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), including for a defendant with an “unusually long sentence.”
U.S. S ENT’ G GUIDELINES M ANUAL § 1B1.13(b)(6) (U.S. S ENT’ G C OMM ’ N Nov. 1, 2023). We
may consider the amendments in an appropriate case, but we decline to do so today.

-- 3 of 3 --