United States of America v. Ekabal Paul Busara

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 19, 2026*
Decided May 22, 2026
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EKABAL PAUL BUSARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 03-CR-52
William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
O R D E R
Ekabal Paul Busara, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second motion
for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because Busara has 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-1218 Page 2
presented the extraordinary and compelling reasons needed to reduce his sentence, we
affirm.
In 2005, Busara was convicted by a jury on kidnapping charges, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 1201(a)(1)–(2), 1201(c), and sentenced to life. On appeal, he successfully challenged the
application of a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice, United States v. Singh,
483 F.3d 489, 496–97 (7th Cir. 2007), and his sentence was reduced to 40 years.
In 2021, Busara sought compassionate release based on an elevated risk for
severe complications from COVID-19 because of his type II diabetes, hypertension, and
a prior COVID-19 infection that put him in a coma and hospitalized him for months.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that Busara—who twice had been
vaccinated and whose underlying conditions were well controlled even without
medication—had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.
In 2024, Busara filed a second motion for compassionate release, reprising his
concerns about the elevated risk of COVID-19, highlighting other medical conditions,
and stressing his need to return home to India to care for his aging parents in declining
health. The court denied this motion too. As the court explained, Busara did not
provide evidence to show that (1) other family members were unable to care for his
parents or (2) his health conditions were so severe to constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release.
On appeal, Busara contends that the district judge failed to consider the recent
amendments to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (effective Nov. 1, 2023) and respond to his arguments
with sufficient depth. But while the court did not cite § 1B1.13, its assessment of
Busara’s arguments adequately conformed to the guideline and reasonably assures us
that it considered his arguments. See United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir.
2021). Regarding his family situation, the district court correctly pointed out that Busara
provided no evidence that his parents lacked other potential caregivers. See
§ 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). Busara asserts that the judge should have engaged in fact-finding to
verify his claims regarding his parents’ need for care, but the burden of establishing
extraordinary and compelling reasons was his. United States v. Barbee, 25 F.4th 531, 532
(7th Cir. 2022).
Busara next asserts that the Bureau of Prisons did not meet its obligation to
provide effective healthcare. See § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) (“The defendant is suffering from a
medical condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1218 Page 3
provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health
or death.”) But as the district court found, this is contradicted by the record, which
shows that Busara has received ongoing health appointments for his chronic conditions
and has, in fact, declined care on more than one occasion.
Busara also argues that the district court erred by failing to evaluate the factors in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But because he cannot establish an extraordinary and compelling
reason for release, the court did not need to consider the § 3553(a) factors. United States
v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --