UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DERRICK SHAREEF
Case No. 06 CR 919
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
May 19, 2025
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge
Case: 1:06-cr-00919 Document #: 147 Filed: 05/19/25 PageID #:644
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
Derrick Shareef has filed a motion for compassionate release under
Background
Mr. Shareef‘s offense involved a planned attack on the CherryVale Mall in Rockford, Illinois. Mr. Shareef devised the plan along with a man whо, unbeknownst to him, was working as an undercover informant for law enforcement. The plan involved using hand grenades at the mall, including planting them in garbage cans there. Mr.
The events that led to Mr. Shareef‘s guilty plea began in September 2006, when the undercover informant, who was working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, approached Mr. Shareef and introduced himself. At the time, Mr. Shareef was a twenty-one-year-old Muslim man working as an employee of a game store in Rockford, Illinois. He lived alone and was struggling to meet his expenses. During his initial conversation with Mr. Shareef at the gamе store, the informant offered to house him rent free and provide him with food and shelter. Mr. Shareef says that the meeting‘s auspicious timing during the month of Ramadan led him to view this offer as an act of “divine intervention” during an otherwise tumultuous time in his life. He immediately agreed and moved in with the informant‘s family the next day.
The government and Mr. Shareef have different takes on the course of events that followed involving Mr. Shareef and the informant. According to the government, at various points during his interactions with the informant, Mr. Shareef told the informant that he wanted to commit attacks of violence in the United States and made comments about attacking different buildings, including federal courthouses, stating that “I just want to smoke a judge.” The government states that Mr. Shareеf made similar comments on other occasions, including when he responded to the informant‘s
Mr. Shareef says that as a result of his difficult upbringing and personal experiences, he developed a son-to-father-like relationship with the informant in which he sought to impress the informant and follow his instructions. Mr. Shareef‘s upbringing was disruptive, involving moves to different states and frequently attending new schools. His mother married three timеs, and Mr. Shareef lacked a relationship with his natural father.
Once he moved in with the informant, Mr. Shareef says, the informant frequently initiated conversations with him about Islam and injustices against Muslims around the world. Gradually, these conversations shifted to discussion about taking action and bringing attention to these issues. Mr. Shareef claims that the informant exploited his
Mr. Shareef states that it was the informant who suggested that they should purchase explosive devices and grenades to use in the mall plot. Mr. Shareef says he had no financial ability to make the purchase. The informant allegedly knew that Mr. Shareef had a pair оf stereo speakers that were worth $100 and suggested that he sell the speakers in exchange for grenades.
On December 6, 2006, Mr. Shareef and a fake weapons supplier met in a parking lot on Walton Road in Rockford to exchange Mr. Shareef‘s stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a nine-millimeter handgun. Once Mr. Shareef handed over the speakers, the fake supplier showed him a locked box in the trunk of his car that contained four hand grenades, a nine-millimeter handgun, and several rounds of ammunition. The grenades and ammunition were non-functioning, but Mr. Shareef did
On December 8, 2006, Mr. Shareef was charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property within the United States, in violation of
During his sentencing hearing, Mr. Shareef gave an allocution in which he denounced his “extreme ideology” that had been “lying dormant within me” but said that “[i]t didn‘t dictate my life. It didn‘t dictate my actions and it didn‘t dictate my speech. It was just something that wаs there because of a misunderstanding.” Sent‘g Tr. at 16, 20, 23. He stated that the informant “called me to conduct this offense that I‘m being charged with,” that “he had such a sway over me to where I accepted from him based upon him being seen in my eyes as someone who had knowledge,” and “he facilitated [me] to these things and encouraged it.” Id. at 22-24. Mr. Shareef admitted that “it [was] true thаt I did have intentions to conduct this offense” but stated that his “intentions were never to completely annihilate and destroy and hurt people.” Id. at 22-23. Towards the end of his statement, Mr. Shareef explained that “I no longer feel this way, and this is due to seeking and acquiring knowledge by the mercy of the Lord. I
On September 30, 2008, Judge David H. Coar sentenced Mr. Shareef to a prison term of 420 months (thirty-five years), along with a $5,000 fine and five years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence on appeal.
On December 10, 2010, Mr. Shareef filed a motion under
Mr. Shareef filed the present motion for compassionate release on November 25, 2021. At the time, he had been incarcerated for fifteen years; at this point it has been about eighteen and one-half years. His motion includes supporting material from a wide range of prison staff and members at FCI Greenville, including a psychologist, a chaplain, a re-entry affairs coordinator, an education administrator and staff member, a cook supervisor, a former inmate, teachers, as well as a staff member at FCI Milan. These statements discuss Mr. Shareef‘s involvement and success in a variety of prison programming, including his successful engagеment with psychology services and programs, his time working in the Suicide Watch Companion program, his involvement with chapel services, completion of college courses, participation in reentry programs, and employment in the prison kitchen. These materials describe Mr. Shareef, among other praiseworthy characteristics, as the “ideаl inmate showing his need to help others, respects staff, and always ready and eager to participate in programs that are beneficial to his needs.” Def.‘s Ex. D (letter from FCI Greenville Re-entry Affairs Coordinator).
Mr. Shareef‘s motion was effectively fully briefed as of August 2022, when his counsel filed a revised proposed release plan. The Court kept the motion under advisement because the Sentencing Commission had under consideration Sentencing Guidelines amendments that arguably сould have benefitted Mr. Shareef. No such amendments materialized, however, so the Court proceeds to rule on the motion.
Discussion
The undersigned judge was not the sentencing judge in this case and does not know if it would have imposed a sentence as severe as the one Mr. Shareef got. But that is not the issue here;
In deciding whether a prisoner has shown “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, a court considers the proffered reasons both “individually and сollectively.” United States v. Vaughn, 62 F.4th 1071, 1073 (7th Cir. 2023). A ground that is independently insufficient may be enough as part of “a combination of factors ” to
Mr. Shareef argues three grounds in support of his motion. First, he points to “15 years of extraordinary, and extraordinarily fruitful, rehabilitative efforts [that] serve to invalidate the principal rationale underlying his 420-month sentence, namely, that this sentence was necеssary to protect the public.” Def.‘s Mem. in Support of Mot. Compassionate Release at 19. Second, he references “the incomplete development of [his] brain at the age of 22,” at the time of the offense. Id. Third, he describes the informant‘s “extraordinary role in bringing about the commission of this ‘attempt’ offense.” Def.‘s Supp. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Compassionate Release at 5. Mr. Shareef contends that these three grounds, taken together, provide an appropriate basis for a sentence reduction.
Starting with rehabilitation, Mr. Shareef presents ten statements from a diverse range of prison officials and staff who speak to his commendable growth and positive development during his time in рrison. They are impressive. The authors of the statements refer to Mr. Shareef as, for example, a “positive role model for the young men in class” a “successful, productive, and rehabilitative man,” and a “genuine person . . . [who] continues to mature and progress.” Def.‘s Exs. G, C. Based on these and the other supplementary materials submitted by the defense, the Court hаs little doubt that Mr. Shareef has been rehabilitated in a significant way.
But under controlling law—including a statute enacted by Congress—rehabilitation by itself cannot suffice as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason permitting early release. See United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2022);
Acknowledging this point, Mr. Shareef argues that his case does present other circumstances, beyond his rehabilitation, that permit this Court to grant compassionate release: his underdeveloped brain at the time of the offense, and what he refers to as the informant‘s “indispensable” role in the offense. Def.‘s Supp. Mem. for Compassionate Release at 6.
The problem with Mr. Shareef‘s argument is that his youth and the role of the informant were mitigating factors argued by his counsel at the sentencing hearing back in 2008—indeed these pоints were arguably the centerpiece of defense counsel‘s argument in mitigation. And these grounds as argued by counsel were undeniably taken into account by the sentencing judge. There is some indication in Seventh Circuit case law that points considered in the original sentencing are not an appropriate basis for a later sentence reduction undеr
And that is essentially the situation presented here. Mr. Shareef‘s age and the role of the informant were factors emphasized by the defense in writing and orally at Mr. Shareef‘s sentencing hearing. Counsel‘s written sentencing memorandum emphasized Mr. Shareef‘s yоuth and the influence of the informant. Def.‘s Sent‘g Mem. at 1-4. And during the hearing, counsel highlighted the informant‘s role in the offense, stating that “[n]ow, in that situation Derrick already has some pretty crazy ideas floating around in his head, and the informant in my view completely manipulated and exploited those to set out a pattern of conduct that eventually culminated in his arrest” and that “[h]е was exploiting their relationship to bring [Mr. Shareef] along to the point where he was arrested.” Sent‘g Tr. at 13–15. The sentencing judge effectively rejected this point as a basis for imposing a lesser sentence: when explaining his sentence, the judge referenced the role of the informant, stating that “[s]o I don‘t understand that the sentence should be tempered by the fortuity that the government intervened.” Id. at 26.
Regarding Mr. Shareef‘s age, it is true that his trial lawyer did not make the specific point argued by counsel now—that the incomplete development of Mr. Shareef‘s brain at the age of twenty-one or twenty-two was part of what led to his commission of the offense. But this does not mean that the point was left by the wayside. Far from it. Counsel‘s sentencing memorandum began with a discussion of Mr. Shareef‘s youth, lack of guidance, being “without a compass,” having “a void in his life,” and as “naïve and immature.” Def.‘s Sent‘g Mem. at 1-2. And there is no question that the sentencing judge picked up on this. The judge effectively began the sentencing
Mr. Shareef‘s current counsel advances arguments regarding his client‘s immaturity and undeveloped brain in a significantly more detailed and effective way than trial counsel did during the sentencing hearing back in 2008. But as indicated earlier, the Court finds no support in the law for the proposition that a compassionate release motion may be sustained on the proposition that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to certain factors or that counsel did not argue them in the best way.
Finally, if the Court considers together all three of the grounds asserted by Mr. Shareef—his rehabilitation, his age and state of brain development at the time of the offense, and the role of the informant—the result is no different. Each of those grounds by itself falls short as the Court has discussed, and this is not a situation in which the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Granting Mr. Shareef‘s motion would be tantamount to saying that he is entitled to a second look at the key grounds considered and rejectеd at the time of the original sentencing based on a factor that, under the statute, cannot suffice by itself, namely his post-sentencing rehabilitation. The Court is unaware of caselaw that takes the compassionate release statute this far.
The Court commends Mr. Shareef for his steady and diligent efforts at rehabilitation. This will serve him and the community very well when he is relеased. But the Court concludes that Mr. Shareef is not entitled to a reduced sentence under the compassionate release statute.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court denies Mr. Shareef‘s motion for compassionate release [dkt. no. 125].
Date: May 19, 2025
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Judge