United States v. Gregory Sanford, 986 F.3d 779

Gregory Sanford was convicted in 2014 of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and sentenced to 180 months; he is incarcerated at USP Victorville and had served about half his term.
Sanford submitted two written compassionate-release requests to the Victorville warden on April 28, 2020, citing COVID-19, and filed a pro se § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion in district court three days later (May 1) before waiting for a response or 30 days to elapse.
The warden denied Sanford’s administrative request on May 14 and informed him of his right to administrative appeal; Sanford’s counsel then filed an amended motion in district court and urged the court to proceed to the merits.
The government raised failure-to-exhaust as an affirmative defense and also opposed release on the merits (noting no COVID-19 cases at Victorville then and that Sanford had no serious medical conditions).
The district court bypassed the exhaustion question and denied relief on the merits, finding Sanford had not shown an elevated risk that would amount to an “extraordinary and compelling” reason.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit held that the statutory exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule that must be enforced when properly invoked; because Sanford filed his motion three days after the warden received his request, he had not exhausted, so the denial was affirmed on that ground.

Issue	Sanford's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s administrative-exhaustion requirement must be enforced	Sanford urged the court to proceed to the merits after the warden denied the request (and emphasized COVID risk)	Government argued Sanford filed in court before the 30‑day lapse or administrative appeal, so he failed to exhaust and the requirement should be enforced	The court held the exhaustion rule is a mandatory claim‑processing requirement; Sanford failed to comply, so denial is affirmed
Whether COVID‑19 risk and Sanford’s health constitute "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for release	Sanford argued COVID‑19 risk to inmates plus reported health complaints (stomach pain, shortness of breath, anxiety) warranted release	Government argued Victorville had no positive cases then and Sanford had no serious medical conditions making him uniquely vulnerable	District court denied on the merits (insufficient individualized risk); the Seventh Circuit did not reach the merits on appeal and affirmed based on failure to exhaust

United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussed exhaustion as an affirmative defense)
United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2020) (held § 3582(c)(1)(A) exhaustion is mandatory)
United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831 (6th Cir. 2020) (held exhaustion mandatory)
United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594 (3d Cir. 2020) (described exhaustion requirement as a "glaring roadblock")
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (if properly invoked, mandatory claim‑processing rules must be enforced)
Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843 (2019) (same)