Case Information
*1 Before W OOD , S CUDDER , and S T . E VE , Circuit Judges .
S T . E VE , Circuit Judge . James Saunders, a federal inmate serving a 5-year sentence for weapons tra cking, moved for We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument be- cause the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C) .
compassionate release or transfer to home con fi nement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and his health problems. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Accepting that Saunders’s health circumstances were extraordinary and compelling, the court nonetheless denied the motion after applying the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It concluded that release was unwar- ranted because of the seriousness of Saunders’s crime and the substantial portion of his sentence remaining. Because the dis- trict court did not abuse its considerable discretion in weigh- ing the § 3553(a) factors, we a rm.
Saunders pleaded guilty to dealing in fi rearms without a license, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and possessing a rearm as a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Saunders and his code- fendants unlawfully obtained rearms in Missouri and sold them to Chicago buyers who they knew planned to use the guns illegally. These rearms included semiautomatic weap- ons that came equipped with or could accept large-capacity magazines. Saunders was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment in January 2020.
Six months later, in June 2020, Saunders asked the court for compassionate release or, alternatively, to transfer him to home con nement because his health put him at serious risk from the novel coronavirus. He argued that his history of chronic bronchitis, type 2 diabetes, blood clots, a heart a ack, other heart problems, diabetic neuropathy, and hyperten- sion—combined with the COVID-19 pandemic—provided “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to release him. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The district court denied the motion. Both the court and government stipulated that Saunders’s health circumstances were extraordinary and compelling. But in considering the *3 § 3553(a) factors, the court found that those factors weighed against release for two reasons. First, it emphasized that fi re- arms tra ffi cking is a serious crime that fuels the ongoing gun violence in Chicago, citing a report from its mayor’s o ffi ce. See City of Chicago, O ce of the Mayor, Gun Trace Report 2017 at 8, h ps://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/ d epts/ mayor / Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR 2017.pdf (“[T]he majority of illegally used or possessed re- arms recovered in Chicago are traced back to states [including Missouri] with less regulation over rearms….”). Second, it noted that Saunders had served only 19 months (including time served before sentencing) of his 60-month sentence. It concluded that releasing Saunders with two-thirds of his sen- tence remaining would undermine the gravity of his o ff ense. (It also remarked that Saunders had not demonstrated that the Bureau of Prisons was unable to control the spread of COVID-19 in his facility.) The court did not address Saun- ders’s alternate request to nish his sentence in home con ne- ment. But, with commendable diligence, the court did re- spond to Saunders’s serious health conditions by recom- mending that the Bureau of Prisons place him in a medical facility, and it has done so.
Saunders argues on appeal that the district court erred by requiring him to remain in prison. Focusing on the pandemic, he contends that he is in danger from COVID-19 even at his new facility. He points to ongoing COVID-19 cases among fel- low inmates and the impossibility of maintaining social dis- tance in prison. We review a district court’s denial of compas- sionate release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir 2020).
The court did not abuse its broad discretion in nding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release despite the threat that Saunders faces from COVID-19. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may release a prisoner for compas- sionate reasons only if, “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a),” it nds extraordinary and compelling rea- sons. Because of the importance of the § 3553(a) factors, courts are not compelled to release every prisoner with extraordi- nary and compelling health concerns. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). And here the court reasonably weighed those factors. It emphasized that Saun- ders commi ed the serious o ff ense of selling unlawfully ob- tained rearms with large-capacity magazines knowing that the buyer intended to use them unlawfully. And it permissi- bly ruled that excusing him from two-thirds of his sentence for this crime would not promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A); United States v. Pawlowski 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020) (upholding district court’s de- nial of compassionate release based on time remaining in pe- titioner’s sentence).
As an aside, we note that, in permissibly denying relief, the district court considered itself constrained by the Sentenc- ing Commission’s criteria for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Although we have since held that § 1B1.13 does not apply when the prisoner, rather than the Bureau, moves for compassionate release, Gunn , 980 F.3d at 1180, any error was harmless because the court found that Saunders met the criteria.
Finally, Saunders argues that the district court should have considered his alternate request for transfer to home con nement. But the court lacked authority to change *5 Saunders’s place of imprisonment. An inmate in home con- nement remains in custody of the Bureau. United States v. Ko 739 F.3d 558, 561 (10th Cir 2014). The Bureau (and under the CARES Act, the A orney General) has plenary control over its inmates’ placement. See Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Eco- nomic Security Act (CARES Act), § 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020); Tapia v. United States , 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011). A district court may only recommend a new placement; it may not order it. Tapia , 564 U.S. at 331; 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B). Thus, the district court did not err by declin- ing to review the merits of a request that it had no power to grant.
The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.