United States v. Damon Rucker, 27 F.4th 560

Damon Rucker is serving 240 months for witness retaliation after a violent attack on a cooperating witness; sentence previously affirmed on appeal.
In October 2020 Rucker moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing obesity, hypertension, pre-diabetes, poor eyesight, possible sickle cell trait, and a recent COVID-19 infection, plus widespread COVID-19 in his facility.
The government argued the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release because of the violent nature of the offense, Rucker’s criminal history, and public-safety/recidivism concerns; it also noted prison treatment and that Rucker remained asymptomatic during his COVID infection per medical records.
The district court denied relief (May 2021), noting exhaustion, treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an informational guide, finding Rucker’s conditions did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons, and emphasizing danger to the public and need for just punishment.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit held the district court did not abuse its discretion: any shortcomings in the court’s medical reasoning were harmless because the court permissibly found the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release; the opinion also stressed the need for individualized analysis in COVID/vaccine contexts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13	§1B1.13 is outdated and non-binding; court should not treat it as controlling	Court permissibly used §1B1.13 as a guide while recognizing it is non-binding	Court: No error — using §1B1.13 as a guide is permissible (Gunn/Kurzynowski)
Whether the court failed to adequately consider Rucker’s medical risks and prison COVID conditions	Court ignored prison outbreak and Rucker’s health and improperly treated his infection as asymptomatic contrary to his affidavit	Government noted medical records showed treatment and asymptomatic infection; argued risks did not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons	Court: Any cursory medical discussion did not require reversal because § 3553(a) factors independently justified denial; error harmless
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Rucker requested a hearing to resolve factual disputes about symptoms and facility conditions	Government: no statutory requirement for a hearing on § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions	Court: No hearing required by statute; district court did not abuse discretion
Whether alleged sentencing errors qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons	Rucker argued potential original-sentence errors support release	Government: sentencing errors are not per se extraordinary and compelling	Court: Not an extraordinary and compelling reason absent a proper procedural vehicle (Martin)

United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (§1B1.13 is not binding on courts considering prisoner-filed compassionate-release motions)
United States v. Kurzynowski, 17 F.4th 756 (7th Cir. 2021) (district courts may permissibly use the old policy statement as a discretionary guide)
United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021) (district opinions must show consideration of individualized medical arguments and avoid unsupported medical conclusions)
United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (appellate review assesses whether district courts acted within broad discretion on §3553(a) factors)
United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595 (7th Cir. 2021) (a single valid §3553(a) reason can justify denying compassionate release)
United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944 (7th Cir. 2021) (alleged sentencing errors do not themselves constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons)
United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021) (vaccine availability reduced most prisoners’ COVID risk but courts must allow showings that vaccines are unavailable or ineffective for a particular individual)