United States v. Eural Black
999 F.3d 1071
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Eural Black, a former Chicago police officer, was convicted of racketeering, drug distribution, robbery, and two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts; he received a 40-year federal sentence (concurrent 10-year terms + 30 years stacked for § 924(c)).
- Black moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (First Step Act amendment allowing inmates to file), citing prostate cancer, chemotherapy (a CDC COVID-19 risk factor), and high COVID-19 infection/death rates at his prison.
- The government conceded Black’s medical condition could qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason but argued § 3553(a) factors (seriousness of crimes; only one-third of sentence served) weighed against release.
- The district court denied relief, relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 Application Note 1 to find no extraordinary and compelling reason and alternatively concluding § 3553(a) factors weighed against release because Black had served only 13 of 40 years.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit explained Gunn v. United States (decided after the district court’s order) holds the Sentencing Commission’s pre‑First Step Act policy statement (§ 1B1.13) is not binding on inmate-filed motions; the panel vacated and remanded so the district court can reevaluate both steps (eligibility and § 3553(a) balancing), particularly in light of First Step Act § 403 changes to § 924(c) sentencing.
- Judge Kirsch dissented: he would have affirmed, finding the district court reasonably considered § 3553(a) factors (including the § 924(c) argument) and that sentencing disparity from the First Step Act is not, as a matter of law, an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Black) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (Application Note 1) is binding on inmate-filed compassionate-release motions | District court should not treat § 1B1.13 as controlling; Black’s cancer + COVID risk are extraordinary and compelling (govt conceded) | District court relied on § 1B1.13 to deny eligibility | The district court erred to the extent it treated § 1B1.13 as binding; post-Gunn courts have broader discretion to assess "extraordinary and compelling" reasons |
| Whether the district court’s alternative § 3553(a) reasoning (one-third served; seriousness) sufficed despite the legal error | The First Step Act § 403 reduced § 924(c) mandatory minimums; sentencing disparity is relevant and may change the weight of § 3553(a) factors | Seriousness of offenses and relatively little time served justify denial | Remanded: district court must take a fresh, fuller look at § 3553(a) balancing and consider (though not compelled to apply) changes in sentencing law when weighing factors |
| Whether Black’s transfer to a different federal prison moots his compassionate-release claim | Transfer does not moot claim because risk from COVID-19 is system-wide and social distancing impossible in prison | Transfer could affect factual weight but does not automatically moot | Transfer did not render the case moot; claim remains live though factual circumstances may change |
| Whether sentencing disparity created by the First Step Act is per se an extraordinary and compelling reason | Disparity (stacked § 924(c) sentences would be shorter today) supports relief and should factor into § 3553(a) balancing | Congress did not make § 403 retroactive; disparity alone should not automatically justify release | Court held district courts may consider legislative changes and disparities in individualized § 3553(a) analysis; dissent argues disparity is not an extraordinary/compelling reason as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (held Sentencing Commission’s § 1B1.13 is not binding for inmate-filed compassionate-release motions)
- United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2021) (discussed compassionate release where stacked § 924(c) sentences and the role of district court discretion)
- United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020) (affirmed compassionate releases for some defendants with stacked § 924(c) convictions; courts may relieve some on case-by-case basis)
- United States v. Owens, 996 F.3d 755 (6th Cir. 2021) (addressed whether First Step Act disparity alone constitutes extraordinary and compelling reason)
- United States v. Sparkman, 973 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2020) (explained nonretroactivity of § 403 to some pre-Act sentences)
- Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (abuse-of-discretion review standard where a decision rests on a mistake of law)
- United States v. Guerrero, 946 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussed standard of review for § 3582(c)(1)(A) denials)
- United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting district court may deny relief based on § 3553(a) even if extraordinary and compelling reasons exist)