United States v. Gilbert Manning, 5 F.4th 803

Manning pleaded guilty in 2013 to marijuana distribution and conspiracy; original 210‑month term reduced to 168 months; projected release in 2025.
In July 2020 he moved pro se for compassionate release citing prediabetes, alleged rheumatoid arthritis, and COVID‑19 exposure; he supplemented the motion and showed administrative exhaustion and a COVID infection.
The district court, citing S.D. Ill. Administrative Order 265, appointed the Federal Public Defender and then a CJA panel attorney (Order 265 permits panel counsel and contemplates limited CJA compensation for compassionate‑release work).
The government argued Manning’s conditions were not ‘‘extraordinary and compelling’’ and § 3553(a) factors opposed release; defense sought release with conditions (e.g., home confinement, monitoring).
The district court denied relief: medical records showed no rheumatoid arthritis, only borderline prediabetes, and the CDC did not list prediabetes as a high‑risk condition—thus no extraordinary and compelling reason.
On appeal the government also challenged the lawfulness of appointing/compensating counsel under Order 265 (invoking Foster/Blake), but the Seventh Circuit declined to decide that facial challenge and affirmed the denial on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of appointing/compensating counsel under S.D. Ill. Administrative Order 265	Order 265 appropriately provides representation to indigent prisoners with non‑frivolous compassionate‑release motions	Appointment and payment of counsel violates Seventh Circuit precedent (no right to appointed counsel in §3582 sentence‑modification proceedings)	Court declined to decide the facial challenge here (government arguably waived; proper forum for facial challenge is Judicial Council); issue left unresolved
Waiver / forum for challenge to Order 265	N/A (defense did not defend Order 265)	Government contends it may raise the issue on appeal	Court held government likely waived by not objecting below and that a facial challenge to an administrative order is for the Judicial Council; appellate review inappropriate here
Merits: Whether prediabetes and alleged rheumatoid arthritis plus COVID constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release	Manning: prediabetes and rheumatoid arthritis heighten COVID risk; FCI Fort Dix had a major outbreak; studies support elevated risk	Government: medical conditions are managed/borderline and not CDC‑recognized high‑risk conditions; §3553(a) factors weigh against release	District court did not abuse discretion: records showed no rheumatoid arthritis, prediabetes was borderline and not CDC‑recognized as high‑risk; denial affirmed under deferential review

United States v. Foster, 706 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2013) (no entitlement to appointed counsel in §3582(c)(2) sentence‑modification proceedings)
United States v. Blake, 986 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2021) (addressing right to counsel in sentence‑modification context and distinguishing §3582(c)(2) from compassionate‑release §3582(c)(1))
United States v. Zingsheim, 384 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2004) (administrative/local court orders are reviewed in context and Judicial Council is proper forum for challenging local rules/orders)
In re Veluchamy, 879 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2018) (failure to object in district court may constitute waiver of appellate challenge)
Bourgeois v. Watson, 977 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2020) (appellate courts sometimes address unraised legal issues when district court participation is unnecessary)
United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (compassionate‑release rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Tjader v. United States, 927 F.3d 483 (7th Cir. 2019) (arguments not presented to the district court are generally waived on appeal)