United States v. Raymond Glasper
20-3420
| 7th Cir. | Jul 28, 2021Background
- Raymond Glasper, serving a 240-month sentence for production of child pornography (secretly filming two minor relatives), moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Glasper asserted hypertension, asthma, and uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes increased his risk of severe COVID-19; he had previously tested positive but was asymptomatic.
- The Bureau of Prisons records showed asthma well controlled, hypertension not severe, and Glasper refusing diabetes treatment and rarely seeking care for other conditions.
- The district court denied relief, finding Glasper failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and separately concluding the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against early release given the seriousness of his offense and that he had served roughly half his sentence.
- Glasper appealed, arguing the court misassessed his medical risks and rehabilitative efforts, improperly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, exaggerated public-safety concerns, and erred by ruling without a hearing.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion on the medical findings or on weighing § 3553(a) factors, and a hearing was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glasper's medical conditions + COVID-19 exposure constitute an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for compassionate release | Glasper: his hypertension, asthma, and uncontrolled diabetes (and prior COVID-19 infection) make him especially vulnerable to severe reinfection | Gov't/District Court: conditions are controlled or not severe; Glasper refused diabetes treatment; prior asymptomatic infection weighs against vulnerability | Court: No abuse of discretion; conditions, individually and cumulatively, did not meet extraordinary-and-compelling standard |
| Whether the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to deny relief | Glasper: court treated the policy statement as binding, limiting its discretion | Gov't/District Court: court used § 1B1.13 as guidance but retained authority to look beyond it | Court: Affirmed; district court guided by § 1B1.13 but not hamstrung, consistent with Gunn |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors required release given Glasper's rehabilitation and proposed supervised/home monitoring | Glasper: rehabilitation, life supervised release, and possible home monitoring mitigate public-safety concerns | Gov't/District Court: seriousness of sexual offenses against minors and fact he served ~half the sentence weigh against release | Court: Even if medical basis were borderline, § 3553(a) factors independently support denial because of offense gravity and insufficient served time |
| Whether Glasper was entitled to an in-person hearing before disposition | Glasper: should have had a hearing | Gov't/District Court: court may decide on the papers; hearing not required | Court: No error; ruling on the record without a hearing was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020) (district courts may look beyond U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 when assessing compassionate-release motions)
- United States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2021) (requirement to consider medical conditions both individually and cumulatively)
- United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny compassionate release based on § 3553(a) factors alone)
- United States v. Sanders, 992 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2021) (district court need not exhaustively detail every § 3553(a) factor to show consideration)
- United States v. Young, 555 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court has discretion over hearings on sentence-reduction motions)
- United States v. Vangh, 990 F.3d 1138 (8th Cir. 2021) (compassionate-release statute does not mandate an in-person hearing)