United States of America v. Jerry L. Hendricks

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 18, 2023 *
Decided September 18, 2023
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-3023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERRY L. HENDRICKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 12-CR-20025
Sue E. Myerscough,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jerry Hendricks, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. Because the district court did not
* 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. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-3023 Page 2
abuse its discretion in concluding that the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
weigh against his release, we affirm.
A jury found Hendricks guilty of sexual exploitation of a minor, see 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2251(a), 3559(e)(1), possession of child pornography, see id. § 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2), and
committing a felony offense involving a minor, see id. § 2260A. Hendricks has a long
history, since 1988, of committing sex offenses involving minors, including taking nude
pictures of and having sexual intercourse with two 15-year-old girls and having sexual
intercourse with a 13-year-old. In 2011, Hendricks, who at the time of his arrest was
wanted for violating a sex-offender-registration requirement, photographed a seven-
year-old’s genitals and the sexual contact he had with the child—the daughter of his
former girlfriend, with whom he resided.
In June 2014, the district court sentenced Hendricks to life imprisonment plus
thirty years. Life imprisonment was mandatory for the sexual-exploitation count, see
18 U.S.C. § 3559(e)(1); the statutory minimum of 10 years for the § 2260A count had to
be consecutive, see id. § 2260A; and the judge chose to make consecutive the statutory-
maximum 20-year sentence for possession of child pornography, see id. § 2252(b)(2). We
affirmed Hendricks’s conviction on direct appeal. See United States v. Hendricks,
615 F. App’x 383 (7th Cir. 2015). His motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 also was
unsuccessful, see Hendricks v. United States, No. 16-CV-03261, 2019 WL 4666318, at *1
(C.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2019), and we denied his request for a certificate of
appealability. Hendricks v. United States, No. 19-2997 (7th Cir. June 30, 2020) .
In June 2022, eight years into his life sentence, Hendricks moved for
compassionate release in the district court after first seeking relief from his warden.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court recruited counsel, who filed an amended
motion asserting that Hendricks qualified for a reduced sentence because of his age
(75 years old), clean disciplinary history in prison, and health conditions. The latter
included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic airway obstruction, coronary
artery disease, hypertension, hypothyroidism, stage three chronic kidney disease,
essential tremors, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis of the
hip and knee, and memory and cognitive dysfunction after a bout of COVID-19.
The district court denied the motion. It noted that Hendricks did not raise his
lack of disciplinary history in his request to the warden and therefore did not exhaust
this ground for relief. Still, it concluded that Hendricks’s medical problems were, in
combination, extraordinary and compelling. But it went on to determine that several
factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against a sentence reduction: Because of
the gravity of Hendricks’s actions and his extensive record of sexually exploiting

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-3023 Page 3
progressively younger victims, early release would not provide adequate deterrence or
just punishment and would endanger the public.
On appeal, Hendricks, who is incarcerated in the United States Medical Center
for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, does not challenge the district court’s
weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. He briefly challenges the court’s evaluation of his
health conditions, but the court ultimately accepted Hendricks’s contention that his
poor health was an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. And to grant
compassionate release, a district court must determine not only that there is an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release but also that release is appropriate
under § 3553(a). See United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th 1249, 1253 (7th Cir. 2022). Because
Hendricks does not make any argument about the § 3553(a) factors in his opening brief,
he has waived the issue. See United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 904 (7th Cir. 2015).
Even without the waiver, any challenge to the district court’s decision would
lack merit. The court reasonably concluded that early release was not justified because
of the seriousness of Hendricks’s criminal conduct—including the fact that he
“exploited progressively younger child victims,” including one he had been entrusted
to reside with—and because a reduced sentence would not protect the public, promote
respect for the law, or provide just punishment or adequate deterrence. See United States
v. Kurzynowski, 17 F.4th 756, 760 (7th Cir. 2021). The court therefore did not abuse its
discretion by denying Hendricks’s motions. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076,
1078 (7th Cir. 2021).
Hendricks also challenges the validity of his conviction on several grounds. He
contends, for example, that detectives fabricated evidence. A compassionate release
motion, however, is not the proper way to challenge a conviction or sentence. See United
States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --