United States of America v. Van Williamson

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 24, 2024*
Decided July 25, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2583
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VAN WILLIAMSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 19-cr-85-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Van Williamson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his fourth motion
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 seeking either a reduction in sentence or compassionate release
* The appellee has notified the court that it is not participating in this appeal. 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).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 23-2583 Page 2
based on his concern over health consequences associated with COVID-19. Because the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm.
Williamson is serving a 96-month sentence in prison after pleading guilty in 2019
to conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(b)(1)(B).
In 2023, Williamson filed his fourth § 3582 motion.1 He again sought to reduce
his sentence based on his fear that his health conditions (including asthma, obesity,
hypertension, pre-diabetes, and arthritis) increased his risk of severe illness from
COVID-19. He also alluded to his rehabilitation efforts at prison—presumably, his
attendance at the prison’s personal-growth classes. The district court denied this
motion. The court determined that Williamson provided “no new information” to
undermine its prior rulings that his health problems were modest and well-controlled
and that release would be inconsistent with sentencing purposes.
On appeal, Williamson asserts that the district court should have considered the
cumulative effects of his underlying health conditions. But our review of such matters is
deferential, since the discretion to evaluate a combination of circumstances rests
“principally” with the district court. See United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1073
(7th Cir. 2023). Because Williamson offered no new evidence to rebut the district court’s
determination that his health conditions were well-controlled and stable, the court
appropriately rejected his health-based arguments as insufficient. Also, rehabilitation
alone does not present an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. United States
v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2022). Regardless, the court provided an
independent and sufficient basis to affirm: the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed
against release, given that Williamson had served only a small part of his sentence for a
serious drug crime. See United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023).
Finally, Williamson asserts that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because he
was subject to an unwarranted sentence disparity. But he waived this argument by
failing to present it to the district court. See Bradley v. Vill. of Univ. Park, Illinois, 59 F.4th
1 In 2021, the district court denied Williamson’s first motion for compassionate release, explaining that his
health conditions were, according to medical records, adequately managed with medication and not
particularly severe, and early release would be inconsistent with the purposes of sentencing. In 2022, the
court denied Williamson’s second motion because his health conditions were well-controlled and the
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) cautioned against early release. Later that year, the court
denied Williamson’s third § 3582 motion for similar reasons.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 23-2583 Page 3
887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023). In any event, this is not a proper argument to bring in a
compassionate release motion. See United States v. King, 40 F.4th 594, 595 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --