United States v. Tony Brock, 39f4th462

2013: Brock indicted for heroin distribution and related conspiracy; the government filed a 21 U.S.C. §851 prior-felony information based on a 2005 cocaine conviction, raising statutory exposure.
Brock pleaded guilty under an agreement that expressly waived his rights to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence; the district court sentenced him to 180 months.
Brock pursued several postconviction challenges under 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and 2255 without success.
In 2020 Brock sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A), arguing United States v. Ruth (966 F.3d 642) changed the law so his 2005 conviction could not support the §851 enhancement and thus constituted an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for reduction.
The district court denied the motion relying on United States v. Thacker; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding compassionate release may not be used to raise sentencing arguments available on direct appeal or in §2255 proceedings or to evade plea-waiver effects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judicial decision (Ruth) can be an "extraordinary and compelling" reason under §3582(c)(1)(A) to reduce a sentence	Brock: Ruth reinterprets federal cocaine definition, undermining his §851 enhancement and qualifying as extraordinary and compelling	Gov't: Allowing this would let defendants circumvent appeals/§2255; Thacker precludes using §3582 to effect such sentencing changes	No — a judicial decision alone cannot serve as the extraordinary and compelling basis to reduce a sentence in this context
Whether §3582(c)(1)(A) may be used to raise claims that could have been advanced on direct appeal or in a §2255 motion	Brock: New law (Ruth) makes relief appropriate under §3582	Gov't: Relief by §3582 would bypass normal appellate and collateral-review processes and plea waivers	No — Thacker and Martin bar using compassionate release to relitigate issues available on appeal or in §2255
Whether Brock’s plea waiver and assumption of future law-change risk allow him to use §3582 to obtain relief	Brock: Subsequent favorable law should permit relief despite waiver	Gov't: Plea waiver covers unanticipated law changes; defendant assumed that risk; §3582 is not a safety valve to renege on the plea bargain	Waiver bars using §3582 to evade the plea agreement; compassionate release does not undo the waiver

United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2020) (court’s interpretation of federal cocaine definition that underlies Brock’s claim)
United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th 569 (7th Cir. 2021) (compassionate release cannot be used to effect sentencing changes that would circumvent statutory limits or normal review processes)
United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944 (7th Cir. 2021) (compassionate release may not be used to raise arguments that could have been advanced on direct appeal)
Oliver v. United States, 951 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2020) (plea waivers can account for future, unforeseen legal developments)
United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2005) (defendant assumes risk of future legal changes when entering plea waivers)