United States of America v. Geraldo Colon

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 28, 2024*
Decided August 29, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1199
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GERALDO COLON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
No. 1:15-cr-00080-JMS-KMB-1
Jane Magnus-Stinson,
Judge.
O R D E R
Geraldo Colon, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of his compassionate-release
motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because this motion is not the proper vehicle to
challenge his original sentence, we affirm.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 2 --

No. 24-1199 Page 2
Colon is serving a 30-year sentence for drug charges involving five kilograms or
more of cocaine and one kilogram or more of heroin, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846,
money laundering, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, and making false statements during a
bankruptcy proceeding, see 18 U.S.C. § 152(2)–(3); see also United States v. Colon, 919 F.3d
510 (7th Cir. 2019). He first sought compassionate release in July 2023, arguing that the
sentencing court erred by attributing too large a quantity of drugs to him. The district
court denied the request, concluding that Colon could not use a compassionate-release
motion to remedy supposed errors in a conviction or sentence. To the extent Colon
argued that a change in the law had created a disparity in the sentence he received and
the sentence he might receive if he were sentenced today, the court explained that this
was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.
In December 2023, Colon again moved to reduce his prison sentence under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), reprising the argument from his first motion. The district court denied
this motion for the same reasons, adding that Colon had not served enough of his
sentence to benefit from a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that permits
some defendants to seek early release based on intervening changes in constitutional or
criminal law. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6) (limiting eligibility to defendants who have
served at least ten years of their sentence). Finally, in the alternative, the court ruled that
the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against Colon’s release.
On appeal, Colon renews his argument that the district court attributed an
excessive quantity of drugs to him when calculating his sentence. But as the district
court properly observed, a compassionate-release motion may not be used as an end
run around a direct appeal or collateral attack. United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 465
(7th Cir. 2022); United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023), cert. denied,
144 S. Ct. 388 (2023).
Colon also asserts that the district court misunderstood him to be seeking relief
under U.S.S.G § 1B1.13(b)(6) rather than § 1B1.13(b)(5) (“Other Reasons”), which does
not contain the requirement that a defendant have served ten years of his sentence. But
§ 1B1.13(b)(5) requires a defendant to identify “any other circumstance or combination
of circumstances” that warrant release. Colon again points to an alleged error in his
sentence as the “other circumstance,” but that just bumps up against our precedent
prohibiting review of sentencing challenges brought under the compassionate-release
statute. See United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --