Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-23-03088/USCOURTS-ca7-23-03088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James B. Hanson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 7, 2024*

Decided December 17, 2024 

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

No. 23-3088 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES B. HANSON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Illinois. 

No. 4:09CR40003-006-JPG

J. Phil Gilbert, 

Judge.

O R D E R

James Hanson, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the district court did not 

abuse its discretion, we affirm.

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 23-3088 Document: 32 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pages: 4
No. 23-3088 Page 2 

Hanson moved for release 15 years after he pleaded guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 

(b)(1)(A), 846. He was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment and a 10-year term of 

supervised release. In 2023, with six years left on his prison term, Hanson moved for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He advanced five reasons: (1) his 

enhanced risk of contracting coronavirus and experiencing serious illness from having 

one kidney and no spleen; (2) the harsh conditions of his confinement arising from the

prison’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; (3) the non-retroactive reductions to the

law under which he was sentenced; (4) the disparity between his sentence and his 

codefendants’; and (5) his “good record of rehabilitation”—no discipline for six years 

and participation in programming and education courses. The government replied that 

Hanson’s assertions were unsubstantiated or inadequate reasons for early release and, 

in any case, the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against his release.

The district court denied Hanson’s motion for two reasons. First, it agreed with 

the government that Hanson had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for his release. Second, even if he had, the § 3553(a) factors weighed against his 

release because Hanson’s 12 prior convictions and 14 disciplinary infractions while 

incarcerated showed a high risk of recidivism and danger to others if released. 

On appeal, Hanson renews his argument that he presented extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warranting his release. Before addressing those arguments, we 

pause briefly to note that this court earlier questioned the timeliness of Hanson’s notice 

of appeal. The government has since waived the time limit for Hanson to appeal; thus

we may proceed with this appeal. See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005). We 

review the denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of discretion, 

United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021), and any underlying fact 

findings for clear error, United States v. Gamble, 969 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2020). 

Hanson argues that the district court wrongly rejected his contention that his 

medical status and the prison’s conditions are extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

release. We disagree. First, the district court reasonably found, based on his medical 

records, that the prison was adequately mitigating Hanson’s medical risks. Second, 

prisoners like Hanson seeking compassionate release based on the dangers from 

coronavirus must show that they cannot medically benefit from vaccines or that, even if

vaccinated, they would be safer outside prison. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 

597 (7th Cir. 2021). Hanson has not done so. Third, mitigation measures that the prison

Case: 23-3088 Document: 32 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pages: 4
No. 23-3088 Page 3 

used to respond to COVID-19, which Hanson contends created harsh conditions of 

confinement, are not a basis here for early release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

See United States v. Bridgewater, 995 F.3d 591, 599 (7th Cir. 2021). Rather, a suit under the 

Eighth Amendment is the proper way to challenge conditions of confinement. See id.

Next, the district court properly ruled that any disparity between Hanson’s 

sentence and his codefendants’, or changes to law under which he was sentenced, were 

not extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release. To begin, arguments about 

sentencing errors belong on direct appeal, which Hanson did not pursue, or on 

collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; they are not extraordinary or compelling 

reasons for compassionate release. See United States v. King, 40 F.4th 594, 595 (7th Cir. 

2022). In any event, no unwarranted sentencing disparity occurred. A “district court is 

required by statute to tailor its sentence to the particular defendant before it.” 

United States v. Solomon, 892 F.3d 273, 279 (7th Cir. 2018). Hanson’s sentence of 262 

months in prison was at the low end of his guidelines range of 262 to 327 months, and a 

within-guidelines sentence complies with the requirement to avoid unwarranted 

disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). See United States v. Clay, 50 F.4th 608, 613 

(7th Cir. 2022). Finally, as the district court noted, Hanson’s offense warranted a 262-

month prison term not only because of his role as the cook in a conspiracy to make

methamphetamine, but also his criminal history, which was longer than his 

codefendants’. 

Hanson’s remaining arguments for early release are also meritless. He contends 

that the district court should have treated his record of rehabilitation as an 

extraordinary reason for release. We disagree. Although a prisoner’s rehabilitation, 

coupled with other factors, can support extraordinary and compelling reasons for 

compassionate release, “rehabilitation alone cannot serve as a basis for early release 

under § 3582(c)(1)(A).” United States v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2022). 

Regardless, the district court properly ruled that Hanson’s 14 disciplinary infractions 

while incarcerated did not reflect adequate rehabilitation. Hanson also argues that 

recent lockdowns and his family’s circumstances warrant early release. But he did not 

present these arguments to the district court; thus we need not consider them.

See United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 945 (7th Cir. 2021).

We observe a second and independent basis for affirming. Hanson does not 

challenge the district court’s ruling that, even if he had shown extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for release, the court in its discretion would deny release based on 

its evaluation of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Applying those factors, the court 

Case: 23-3088 Document: 32 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pages: 4
No. 23-3088 Page 4 

reasonably ruled that Hanson’s 12 prior criminal convictions and 14 disciplinary 

infractions while incarcerated created a high risk of recidivism and public danger that 

weighed against release. The district court needed only “one good reason” for denying 

Hanson’s motion, see Ugbah, 4 F.4th at 598 (7th Cir. 2021), and its reasonable assessment 

under § 3553(a) of the seriousness of his crimes, his substantial disciplinary infractions 

while in prison, and his risk of recidivism suffices. 

Finally, we note a development occurring after the district court denied Hanson’s 

motion for compassionate release, but it does not alter the outcome of this appeal. In 

late 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines to expand the list of 

“extraordinary and compelling reason[s]” that may warrant a sentence reduction under 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) to include some non-retroactive changes in the law. See § 1B1.13(b)(6). To

qualify, the defendant must have received an “unusually long sentence,” served at least 

10 years of his term of imprisonment, and show “a gross disparity between the sentence 

being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed.” Id.

Hanson does not argue that the amendment to § 1B1.13(b)(6) applies to his case. Also, 

he filed his motion, and the district court denied it, before the amendments became 

effective in November 2023. Finally, and in any case, the district court’s independent 

reliance on the § 3553(a) factors to deny relief renders the amendments irrelevant.

Hanson's recently filed motion for a status update on this appeal is DENIED as 

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED

Case: 23-3088 Document: 32 Filed: 12/17/2024 Pages: 4