United States v. John Dominguez
20-2918
| 7th Cir. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- John M. Dominguez, age 69, with type 2 diabetes, hepatitis C, chest pain, hyperlipidemia, and liver disease, is serving a 135‑month sentence for possession with intent to distribute heroin at FMC Fort Worth.
- He has a roughly 50‑year criminal history (over 20 convictions, including about 10 felonies and violent drug offenses) and violated pretrial release by cutting an ankle monitor, committing new offenses, and using drugs.
- In July 2020 Dominguez moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing heightened COVID‑19 risk because of age and medical conditions.
- The district court found FMC Fort Worth was monitoring and treating his conditions (vaccine availability not contested) and COVID cases at the facility had declined; it denied release on medical grounds and because the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed heavily against release given his record and lack of faith in compliance with conditions.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, declined to consider new facts raised on appeal (e.g., a subsequent COVID infection), and affirmed the denial based on both the medical assessment and independent § 3553(a) grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dominguez’s age and health/COVID risk constitute "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for compassionate release | Dominguez: age and multiple serious conditions create extraordinary COVID risk justifying release | Government: FMC Fort Worth is adequately monitoring/treating him; vaccine availability and managed facility conditions mean no extraordinary risk | Court: No abuse of discretion — judge reasonably found risks were managed and not extraordinary/compelling |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors permit release despite health risks | Dominguez: release warranted (or judge erred in denying) | Government: § 3553(a) (serious offense, long violent drug history, pretrial violations) strongly disfavors release; low likelihood of compliance | Court: Affirmed — § 3553(a) independently supports denial of release |
| Standard of appellate review | Dominguez: district judge abused her discretion | Government: judge acted within discretion; appellate review is deferential | Court: Review is deferential; no abuse of discretion was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (framework and deference for compassionate‑release decisions under § 3582)
- United States v. Howell, 958 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2020) (appellate courts may not rely on facts not presented to the district court at the time of its decision)
- United States v. De La Torre, 940 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2019) (appellate court should not reweigh § 3553(a) sentencing considerations)