United States of America v. William Doyle

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 16, 2024 *
Decided January 26, 2024
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1577
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM DOYLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 89 CR 908-12
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
William Doyle, a federal prisoner serving a life sentence, appeals the judgment
denying his motion for compassionate release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1577 Page 2
district judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that Doyle failed to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, we affirm.
In 1995, a jury convicted Doyle of various federal offenses related to his
involvement in the El Rukn organization, a Chicago street gang. He was found guilty of
committing numerous racketeering acts, including multiple murders, conspiracies to
murder, attempted murders, and drug crimes. His federal sentence—which ran
consecutive to a prior state sentence for murder—was for life, concurrent with two
twenty-year sentences. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Doyle,
121 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 1997).
Doyle sought compassionate release in 2022. He argued that early release was
justified because his sentence was grossly disproportionate relative to his
co-defendants; his rehabilitation tilted the weight of the sentencing factors under
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) against continued detention; and a combination of factors—his
advancing age, unspecified health conditions, and heightened risk of COVID-19 in
prison—posed extraordinary risks to his health.
The district judge denied Doyle’s motion. Doyle, the judge noted, did not show
that he suffered from a serious medical condition warranting release. Relatedly,
Doyle—as a vaccinated prisoner—could not show that the risk of COVID-19 was an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release. See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th
801, 803 (7th Cir. 2021). The judge added that prisoners may not use the compassionate
release statute to challenge a sentence on grounds that could be raised on direct appeal.
United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th 569, 574 (7th Cir. 2021); United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th
944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021). And rehabilitation arguments alone cannot support a motion for
compassionate release. See United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2022).
Because Doyle had not established an extraordinary and compelling reason for a
sentence reduction, the judge did not reach the question whether the § 3553(a) factors
supported his motion. See United States v. Newton, 37 F.4th 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 2022).
On appeal, Doyle primarily challenges the court’s conclusion that he has no
medical issues warranting compassionate release. He now argues for the first time that
he takes pain medication, sometimes uses a wheelchair, and has severe degenerative
osteoarthritis and mildly elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. He also asserts that
his medical needs are not being adequately addressed in prison. Even though Doyle
failed to contend, in the district court, that his medical problems justified release, the
district court determined that Doyle’s medical record did not support such a finding.
Based on the evidence that Doyle presented in the district court, the judge acted well

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-1577 Page 3
within her discretion in denying his motion. United States v. Howell, 958 F.3d 589, 595
(7th Cir. 2020) (our review is limited to information that the district court considered at
the time of her ruling).
Doyle also contends that his daughter, who recently had a hysterectomy and is
undergoing cancer treatments, needs him to care for her at home. Because he raises this
issue too for the first time on appeal, it is forfeited, Jackson v. Bartow, 930 F.3d 930, 934
(7th Cir. 2019), and we see no circumstances under which we may overlook the
forfeiture.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --