United States v. Lazarick King, 20-3097

Lazarick King, convicted of aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and mail fraud, was serving an 84-month sentence and had completed about one-third of it.
He moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), initially citing hypertension and asthma and later added obesity (BMI above CDC threshold) as heightened COVID-19 risk factors.
The government conceded obesity could be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason but opposed release based on the seriousness of King’s scheme (nearly $1M in stolen refunds from vulnerable victims) and a decades-long fraud history.
The district court denied the initial motion for lack of extraordinary-and-compelling proof, then denied reconsideration, concluding that even assuming extraordinary circumstances, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against release.
The court relied on the multi-year, multi-victim fraud and King’s long record of recidivism to find release inappropriate and that reducing his term by more than half would not reflect the crimes’ seriousness.
King’s arguments that pretrial release and a low-security placement showed low risk, and his alternative request for transfer to home confinement, were rejected (the latter because BOP controls placements).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether King’s obesity/COVID risk is an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for compassionate release	Obesity (BMI above CDC threshold) puts him at high risk of severe COVID-19 illness, qualifying as extraordinary/compelling	Government conceded obesity qualifies but maintained release still inappropriate	Court assumed obesity could qualify but denied release under § 3553(a) balancing
Whether King’s post-sentencing conduct and low risk scores justify release	Prison work, education, low-risk assessment, age, nonviolent offense show low reoffense risk	Long history of recidivism and severity of fraud show continued danger and need for punishment	District reasonably rejected claimed rehabilitation and low-danger arguments
Whether pretrial release or BOP facility assignment constrain compassionate-release discretion	Pretrial bond and placement in low-security prison show he is not dangerous	Those decisions are distinct and do not limit the court’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) discretion	Court correctly treated those matters as irrelevant to compassionate-release § 3553(a) analysis
Whether the court could order transfer to home confinement instead of release	Alternatively requested transfer to home confinement	BOP has exclusive authority over inmate placement	Appellate court lacks authority to order home confinement; BOP controls placement

United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion review of compassionate-release denials; § 3553(a) factors can justify denial despite extraordinary medical concerns)
United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021) (district courts may permissibly reject a defendant's arguments of low risk/reformation when § 3553(a) factors show continued need for confinement)