United States of America v. Anthony Cook

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 18, 2021 *
Decided June 21, 2021
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 21-1016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY COOK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 14-CR-226-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anthony Cook, a federal inmate with several health problems, moved for
compassionate release because of his risk of severe complications if he contracts
COVID-19. The district court acknowledged the risk posed by Cook’s medical
conditions in light of the pandemic but concluded that the sentencing factors under
* We have agreed to decide this 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 21-1016 Page 2
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against his release. Because the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Cook’s motion, we affirm.
In 2013, Cook traveled from Chicago to Milwaukee to participate in a scheme
with a family member and several other people to rob a check-cashing business with the
help of an insider. While the robbers were on the way to the store, one of them
displayed a pistol. When they arrived, Cook and the armed co-defendant entered the
check-cashing business; the co-defendant held a security guard at gunpoint while a
masked Cook took over $300,000 from the safe. Cook pleaded guilty to robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of
violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He received a below-guidelines
sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment, which he is serving at the Federal Correctional
Institution Milan in Michigan. His projected release date is March 8, 2025.
In November 2020, Cook moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that his medical conditions—severe obesity (BMI of 41),
prediabetes, and hypertension—place him at a higher risk of serious complications or
death from COVID-19. He also asserted that officials at FCI Milan were not taking
proper precautions to contain the spread of the virus. The government acknowledged
that Cook’s obesity does place him at a heightened risk should he contract the virus. But
it contended that the sentencing factors under § 3553(a)—particularly the dangerous
nature of his offense—weighed against an early release.
The district court denied the motion. It concluded that, although Cook
demonstrated multiple underlying health conditions that independently and
cumulatively increase his risk of severe complications from COVID-19, the § 3553(a)
factors weighed against his release. The court pointed out that Cook had a criminal
history spanning over two decades and that his current offense was a violent felony in
which he participated fully and knowingly. The court acknowledged Cook’s good
behavior and job training while in prison but noted that he still had over four years of
his below-guidelines sentence left to serve.
The court also acknowledged Cook’s argument that his sentence should be
reduced in light of the decision in Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). After
Cook was sentenced in 2015, the Supreme Court held that a sentencing court may offset
a mandatory-minimum sentence under § 924(c) by adjusting the sentence for the
predicate offense, allowing for the possibility of a lower overall sentence. Id. at 1177–78.
But, the district court explained, it had confidently concluded when it sentenced Cook

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 21-1016 Page 3
that 144 months was “the only fair, just, and reasonable sentence.” The additional
flexibility now afforded by Dean—even if relevant to a compassionate-release request—
changed nothing in its assessment.
On appeal, Cook argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion because it erroneously relied on the policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in
light of our decision in United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020). But the court
correctly acknowledged the holding in Gunn, which explains that the policy statement
in § 1B1.13 can guide, but not constrain, its analysis of whether an inmate demonstrated
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Id. at 1180. Moreover, here the district
court found that Cook did demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons, so
consulting the policy statement worked no harm on Cook.
Notwithstanding the health-related reasons supporting release, the court acted
within its discretion in denying Cook’s motion. It acknowledged the seriousness of
Cook’s health issues and the danger of COVID-19 inside prisons, but reasonably found
that release would be inappropriate under the § 3553(a) factors. It highlighted the
seriousness of the offense—a violent felony—and how Cook’s involvement in the
armed robbery (crossing state lines to participate in the scheme, seeing the gun prior to
the robbery, wearing a mask, and taking money from the safe while a guard was held at
gunpoint) negated his contention that he was a “relatively low-level participant.” It also
noted that Cook had a long criminal history (five prior convictions spanning two
decades). And while the court recognized Cook’s clean record in prison and positive
recommendation by his work supervisor, it permissibly concluded that he should serve
the remainder of his below-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d
1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021).
Because Cook does not raise the argument on appeal, we do not discuss the
relevance of Dean in the context of compassionate-release motions.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --