O R D E R Shaiquan Addison, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second… v. Shaiquan Addison

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 27, 2025*
Decided January 27, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2383
O R D E R
Shaiquan Addison, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second motion
for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a)(i). The district court denied the
* 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).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAIQUAN ADDISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:19-cr-00235-JRS-MJD
James R. Sweeney II,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2383 Page 2
motion after determining that the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against a
sentence reduction. We affirm.
In 2021, Addison pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a),
and one count of brandishing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The court sentenced him to the statutory minimum 84 months’
imprisonment on the firearm charge, one day’s imprisonment on the robbery charge,
plus three years’ supervised release.
Addison then moved for compassionate release based on his risk of severe illness
if he contracted COVID-19; his need to be at home to care for his minor child, given the
incapacitation of his son’s caregivers; his rehabilitation efforts in prison; and his lack of
prior criminal history. The court denied the motion, finding that Addison had not
established an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, and regardless, the
§ 3553(a) factors—specifically, the seriousness of his offense and the length of time
remaining on his sentence—weighed against it. Addison did not appeal.
Shortly thereafter, Addison filed a second motion for compassionate release,
reprising the arguments in his prior motion and emphasizing his responsibilities at
home to care for his child. The court again denied the motion. The court explained that
even if it assumed that Addison had established an “extraordinary and compelling
reason” for release based on his child’s caregiving needs, Addison had produced no
new information to alter its prior ruling that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against
release.
On appeal, Addison argues that the district court erred when it did not conduct
an independent § 3553(a) analysis in response to his arguments in his second motion for
compassionate release. But a proceeding under § 3582(c) is not a full resentencing,
United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021), and the district court needed to
discuss the § 3553(a) factors only “to the extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). See also Ugbah, 4 F.4th at 598; United States v. Joiner, 988 F.3d 993, 995
(7th Cir. 2021). The court pointed out that Addison had not submitted any new
information in his second motion that would tip the balance in his favor, so no further
discussion was necessary. See United States v. Clayton, 811 F.3d 918, 921 n.1 (7th Cir.
2016).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2383 Page 3
Addison also asserts that the district court failed to recalculate his guidelines
range in response to his second motion for compassionate release. But he identifies no
basis for any change in the guidelines calculations, and on this record we cannot discern
one.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --