Case Information
*1 Before M ANION , K ANNE , R OVNER , Circuit Judges . K ANNE Circuit Judge
. When COVID Legionnaires’ disease began spreading Vickie correctional fa cility—where serving sentence o ff enses related manufacturing methamphetamine—she became nervous about own health. su ff ers from numerous medi cal conditions, many which put higher serious illness from those diseases.
2 20 2561
Represented counsel, petitioned under U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) light outbreaks her particular susceptibility. af ‐ ter government submi tt ed new records Sand ‐ ers was foreclosed from addressing, denied her re ‐ lief. It found that, although Sanders su ff ers from con ‐ ditions place at greater serious illness, her criminal history fi nding home con fi ne ment would be unsuitable (a methamphetamine lab was kitchen) sentence modi fi cation.
Because abuse or deny Sanders process, we ffi rm.
I. B ACKGROUND In 2017, grand jury charged Vickie Sanders with conspir acy manufacture fifty grams more methamphetamine (Count 1), attempt manufacture methamphetamine (Count 2), possession pseudoephedrine knowing would be used manufacture methamphetamine (Counts 3–6). She pled guilty all six counts.
In May 2018, sentenced Sanders months’ imprisonment on Count months’ imprison ment on Counts through run concurrently. sen tence included eight years supervised release, $300 fine, $600 special assessment. affirmed convic tions sentence direct appeal. F.3d (7th Cir. 2018). currently serving sentence Federal Cor rectional Institution Coleman Low Florida. In FCI 20 ‐ 2561 3 Coleman Low experienced outbreaks Legionnaires’ dis ‐ ease [1] and COVID ‐ 19.
On July 10, 2020, just over two years into her ten ‐ year sen tence, filed “Emergency Motion Compassion ate Release” under U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). She requested immediate in light COVID ‐ pandemic, outbreaks COVID and Legionnaires’ at FCI Coleman Low, and her particular susceptibility. In her motion, listed numerous conditions, including several put at increased serious illness if she is infected COVID Legionnaires’. Such conditions included car dio obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, obesity, and Type II diabetes. She noted age (59 years old) and status as former heavy smoker increased risk.
On July 2020, entered scheduling required government respond motion within five weeks. That same day, Sanders filed mo ‐ tion expedite. The district court granted motion.
On July 31, 2020, government filed its response and tached new medical records, including records stating that Sanders had tested positive COVID July and any symptoms had subsided by July 23.
On August district court entered its order denying Sanders’s motion release. After detailing her criminal history, history, and compas sionate request, § 1B1.13 Sentencing Guidelines U.S.C. 3553(a) factors her
Sanders filed reconsideration, arguing should have been given opportunity file un der Southern District Illinois Local Rule 7.1(g) erred its analysis. denied mo tion, timely appealed.
II. A NALYSIS argues violated its own local rules denied process issued relief without giving opportunity file re ply brief. She argues abused discretion failing sufficiently consider current condi tions arguments analysis.
A. No Opportunity File Reply first address challenge application Southern District Illinois Local Rule 7.1(g). District courts have “considerable interpreting applying their local rules.” Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., 20 2561 5 Ltd. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc. , 800 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cuevas v. United States , F.3d 751, (7th Cir. 2003)). “[W]e ‘will intrude on that discretion only where we are convinced that made a mistake.’” Id. (quoting Bunn v. Khoury Enters., Inc. , F.3d (7th Cir. 2014)).
Of course, this does allow courts to apply a rule in way violates a litigant’s due process rights. Id. (“When strict adherence to local rules … threatens to deprive litigant of opportunity to respond, local rules must give way considerations due process fundamental fairness.”). “Due process … requires [party] be given an opportunity respond an argument or evidence raised as basis dismiss his claims.” Id. For example, in Meinders , we blanket proscription sur reply briefs Southern District Illinois Local Rule 7.1(c) created potential process violations. litigant’s due process rights were violated until “the dis missal relied ” new arguments evidence. Id. (em phasis added); see Neal F.3d (7th Cir. 2010) (“[The defendant] entitled opportunity contest propositions affect how long he must spend prison.”).
Local Rule 7.1(g) provides “[a] reply, if any, shall be filed within days service response. Reply briefs are favored should be filed only exceptional cir cumstances. party filing brief shall state ex ceptional circumstances.” S.D. Ill. R. 7.1(g). argues government’s attachment new records warranted reply. In response brief,
government attached records dated after ‐ filed opening brief. According the government, Sanders had already contracted COVID and was “basically asymp tomatic and not suffering any serious illness.”
The records show that Sanders tested positive for COVID on July and, thereafter on July she gave no indication of any symptoms such as fever, chills, shortness of breath (SOB), or body aches. The record further states that experience headache, decreased smell taste, an itching rash. Thereafter on July a lack of any symptoms is indicated except phlegm rash.
In order of denial, the stated Sanders had tested positive COVID indicated lack dis played symptoms. Then, prohibited Sanders from exercising opportunity file reply brief contesting validity information contained order denial.
In order denying reconsideration, addressed Local Rule 7.1(g)’s standard. had failed describe “exceptional circumstances” merited filing and, regardless, nothing would have changed because order denying relief was concerned with existence nonexistence symptoms. More specifically, order stated “did rely on finding asymptomatic. Ra ther considering Sanders’ history characteristics, Court balanced Sanders’ severe conditions with ‘decades long history crime.’” And face dis trict relief supports conclusion. As described more detail below, analysis focused Sand ers’s criminal history other facts dispute. 20 2561 7
Thus, the district court’s denial relief did not rely new evidence, so it could not constitute “a basis to dismiss [Sanders’s] claims” violation process rights. Meinders , 800 F.3d at 858. For the same reason, the court not abuse when it denied request to file a failing to identify exceptional circumstances under Local Rule 7.1(g).
B. Denial Compassionate Release We now turn Sanders’s challenge the district court’s analysis compassionate release. will upset denial a motion compassion ate unless the abused “considerable discre tion” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 2021).
A brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows the reduce prison sentence if, “after considering factors set forth section 3553(a) extent they are applica ble,” finds “extraordinary compelling reasons war rant[ing] such reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Saunders , F.3d at 1078. Here, concluded § 3553(a) factors The court examined the nature circumstances of Sand ers’s methamphetamine offenses—for example, when she was arrested, law enforcement discovered a methampheta mine lab in her kitchen loaded handgun—and found that Sanders had committed “recent deplorable offenses” that “placed the welfare of the community at risk.” That factor therefore weighed against Then, the court determined that Sanders’s history characteristics were neutral factor because, although her medical conditions place her higher of severe illness, her lengthy criminal history belies her argument that she is danger the community. court similarly that need sentence imposed is neutral. Finally, court determined kinds of sen tences available because her offenses involving manufacturing methamphetamine took place in her own kitchen—a significant concern she is re questing home confinement. argues erred in its § 3553(a)
analysis by considering all her arguments relief. disagree.
First, contends relied on out date medical information because it failed list each medi cal conditions analysis acknowledge they made more susceptible illness from legionella. clearly identified conditions, from presentence report as well as updated Although incorrectly believed itself be bound § 1B1.13, any error harmless because weighing § 3553(a) factors independently supports decision, id. con ceded brief “the primarily rested weighing 3553(a) factors.”
records, in the “medical history” “compassionate re ‐ lease” sections of its order, it generally referred to those conditions in its analysis. It was not required to re list each condition demonstrate it adequately considered it. The same true its consideration Sanders’s of illness legionella. And the court reiterated in its order denying Sand ‐ ers’s motion reconsideration “[a]lthough the Memo ‐ randum & Order did not make second reference le ‐ gionella, Court considered it then remains same mind now.”
Second, argues court should have re ‐ ferred record discipline, program participation, substance abuse mental health treatment its analysis. “the need provide detailed, written ex planation analyzing every § 3553(a) factor.” Marion F.3d (7th Cir. 2009). Regardless, de nial Sanders’s reconsideration, ex pressly addressed post sentencing behavior, stating “[w]hile Court commends achievements, facts un derlying recent conviction suggest still presents danger community.” When issuing an release, must “provide some state ment reasons supporting decision.” Id. It did so here.
Thus, reasonably weighed 3553(a) factors did abuse discretion finding they
III. C ONCLUSION violate process
rights commit abuse denied Sand ers opportunity government’s response. It abuse AFFIRM.
[1] Centers Disease Control Prevention (CDC) explains “[p]eople can get Legionnaires’ disease … when they breathe in small droplets water air contain bacteria [legionella].” Legionella (Legionnaires’ Disease Pontiac Fever): Causes, How it Spreads, People Increased Risk Centers Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/about/causes transmission.html (last vis ited Mar. 2020). “Legionella type bacterium naturally freshwater environments,” “can become health concern grows spreads human made building water systems.” Id.
[2] Other conditions listed include: hypertension, hyper lipidemia, peripheral artery disease, chronic viral hepatitis C, anemia, sleep apnea, vitamin D deficiency, varicose veins, lumbar degenerative disc disease, foot pain, peripheral neuropathy, cervical dysplasia, diver ticulitis, depression.
[3] Section 3582(c)(1)(A) provides may only reduce sentence if “such reduction consistent with applicable policy statements issued Sentencing Commission.” Sentencing Commission has updated U.S.S.G. 1B1.13 since First Step Act amended statute permit inmate petition herself. Thus, we have held “§ 1B1.13 does apply prisoner, ra ther than Bureau [of Prisons], moves release.” Saun ders F.3d (citing Gunn , F.3d (7th Cir. 2020)).