United States of America v. Timothy R. Babbitt

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 30, 2024*
Decided February 2, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY R. BABBITT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Central
District of Illinois.
No. 13-cr-10100
Michael M. Mihm,
Judge.
O R D E R
During the COVID-19 pandemic Timothy Babbitt sought compassionate release,
see 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A), principally on the ground that his medical conditions made
him especially vulnerable to the disease. The district court denied that motion and we
affirmed, for two reasons: first, Babbitt had not exhausted administrative remedies, as
the statute requires; second, the district judge had not abused his discretion in
concluding that Babbitt lacked an extraordinary and compelling reason for
release. United States v. Babbitt, No. 20-2866 (7th Cir. June 23, 2021) (nonprecedential
disposition).
* This successive appeal has been submitted to the panel that decided Babbitt’s initial appeal. See
Operating Procedure 6(b). Circuit Judge Kanne died after the first decision and has not been replaced on
the panel; this appeal is being decided by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. §46(d). After examining the
briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a);
Cir. R. 34(f).

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-3235 Page 2
Babbitt then filed two more motions for compassionate release. The United States
concedes that he has exhausted administrative remedies. Once again, however, the
district judge found that Babbitt has not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason
for release. Once again we hold that this decision does not reflect an abuse of discretion.
Babbitt repeats his arguments about susceptibility to COVID-19. Yet
circumstances are less dire now than in 2020, when he originally sought release. Babbitt
has been fully vaccinated. He does not contend that the prison where he now resides is
experiencing an outbreak. And it is hard to see how release from prison would provide
him substantial assistance in resisting the disease. To the extent his conditions (such as
obesity) dispose him to serious illness in prison should he be infected, they would do
the same if he were to be released.
Babbitt has compiled a good record in prison and obtained a master’s degree as
well as numerous certificates. The district court concluded that these achievements,
while commendable, fall short of the statutory requirement that they be extraordinary
and compelling. That assessment is not an abuse of discretion.
Finally, Babbitt contends that, if released, he could help care for his 80-year-old
mother. Under the revised policy statement in the latest version of the Sentencing
Guidelines, release could be appropriate based on “[t]he incapacitation of the
defendant’s parent when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the
parent.” U.S.S.G. §1B1.13(b)(3)(C) (effective Nov. 1, 2023). Babbitt does not contend that
his mother is incapacitated or that he is the only potential caregiver.
His other arguments (such as his contention that his criminal history was
calculated incorrectly at his sentencing in 2014) have been considered but do not require
discussion.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --