United States v. Marcello Mays, 21-2324

Background

Marcello Mays is serving a 100‑month federal sentence for drug offenses (including managing a drug house and carrying a firearm) and has hypertension.
In June 2020 Mays first moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing hypertension and COVID‑19 risk; the district court denied relief, finding him "young and relatively healthy" and noting controlled hypertension was not identified by CDC as increasing COVID risk.
In December 2020 Mays sent a letter (construed as a motion to reconsider); the court again denied relief for the same reasons.
In June 2021 Mays filed a second motion to reconsider, adding medical studies, a CDC webpage, news articles on racial disparities, and arguments about pre‑diabetes, family history, race, age, and education.
The district court denied the second reconsideration motion, emphasizing disagreement among experts about COVID risk for otherwise healthy persons with hypertension and, crucially, that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors (seriousness of offense, extensive criminal history, and substantial time remaining) weighed strongly against release.
The Seventh Circuit addressed a potential timeliness/jurisdiction issue under the 14‑day rule but declined to enforce it because the government did not press the defect; the court affirmed the denial, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mays’s medical condition and COVID‑19 risk constitute "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)	Mays: hypertension (still uncontrolled), pre‑diabetes, family history of heart disease/liver failure, and racial disparities increase his risk of severe COVID‑19 illness.	Government/District Court: Mays’s hypertension was well‑managed with medication; CDC did not treat controlled hypertension as increasing COVID risk; experts disagree on elevated risk for otherwise healthy persons with hypertension.	The court held Mays did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons; district court reasonably rejected the medical basis for release.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors	Mays: his age and education reduce recidivism risk; the § 3553(a) factors properly weighed could favor release.	District Court/Government: Seriousness of offenses, extensive criminal history, and that he had served less than one‑third of sentence weigh heavily against release.	The court held the district court acted within its discretion; the § 3553(a) factors provided "just one good reason" (in fact several) to deny compassionate release.
Whether the appeal was timely / jurisdictional given motions to reconsider and the 14‑day rule	Mays appealed after the second reconsideration denial within 14 days; he relied on the second motion to toll finality.	Government did not press the timeliness defect; the 14‑day rule is not jurisdictional.	The court declined to enforce the 14‑day rule here and proceeded to the merits.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Rollins, 607 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2010) (14‑day rule for timely motions to alter or amend judgment and its effect on finality)
United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (district court has broad discretion in compassionate‑release decisions)
United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560 (7th Cir. 2022) (a district court need identify only one adequate reason to deny compassionate release)