Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02207/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02207-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emerson Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted December 2, 2024*

Decided December 4, 2024 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge 

NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge

No. 24-2207 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

EMERSON BROOKS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois. 

No. 2:16-cr-20012-SLD 

Sara Darrow, 

Chief Judge. 

O R D E R 

Emerson Brooks appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion after 

*

 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 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: 24-2207 Document: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-2207 Page 2 

determining that the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against a sentence reduction. 

Because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm. 

Brooks pleaded guilty in 2017 to possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, 

see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)–(C), and unlawfully carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(A)(i). He was sentenced to 

150 months’ imprisonment and 8 years’ supervised release. In the years that followed, 

he filed multiple unsuccessful motions to obtain a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582.1 

On March 14, 2024, Brooks filed his seventh motion for compassionate release 

under § 3582. A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release if 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduced sentence, the reduction is 

consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements, and the reduction is 

appropriate in light of the § 3553(a) factors. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Williams, 

65 F.4th 343, 346 (7th Cir. 2023). Brooks argued that his sentence had been wrongly 

enhanced by two state drug convictions that we have since determined not to be 

predicate felony drug offenses. See Ruth, 966 F.3d at 650. He also cited several 

alternative bases for compassionate release, including his worsening mental health, 

see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B)(iii), age, see id. § 1B1.13(b)(2), and efforts toward 

rehabilitation, see id. § 1B1.13(d). 

Chief Judge Darrow, who had been reassigned the case, denied the motion. She 

cited recent orders in which she had rejected Brooks’s reliance on this same argument, 

adding that she repeatedly had found a sentence reduction not warranted under the 

§ 3553(a) factors, particularly given the seriousness of his offense, the need to promote 

respect for the law, and the need to provide adequate deterrence. 

1 In his first motion, for which he was represented by counsel, Brooks sought early release based 

on his health conditions, which, he said, increased his risk of serious injury or death from COVID. He 

filed six later motions pro se, arguing in each that his sentence was unlawful because it was wrongly 

enhanced under the standard announced in United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642, 650 (7th Cir. 2020). These 

later motions, besides raising a Ruth-related argument, also invoked other arguments, including 

improper application of the § 3553(a) factors (third motion), a challenge based on the not-yet-passed 

Equal Act (fourth motion), racial disparities in crack-cocaine sentencing (fifth motion), and new 

amendments to the Guidelines (sixth motion). Brooks also filed three additional motions, not under 

§ 3582, each raising the same Ruth-related argument. The district court gave appropriate reasons for 

denying all these motions and informed him after his fifth motion that a motion for compassionate 

release is an improper vehicle to challenge the validity of his sentence. 

Case: 24-2207 Document: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-2207 Page 3 

On appeal, Brooks maintains that his sentence was unlawful because it was 

enhanced by his prior drug convictions that can no longer qualify as predicate offenses 

for the enhancement. But as the district court correctly stated in response to one of his 

prior motions, compassionate release is not the proper vehicle through which to 

challenge a sentence. United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023). 

Section 3582(c)(1) does not provide a basis for Brooks to assert that he was sentenced 

unlawfully, United States v. Williams, 62 F.4th 391, 392 (7th Cir. 2023), even if he lacks 

any other means of pressing that argument, see United States v. Wyatt, 672 F.3d 519, 524 

(7th Cir. 2012) (although petitioner would likely receive substantially lower sentence if 

sentenced today, “there is no longer any judicial procedure to remedy the situation”). 

Brooks also asserts on appeal that the district court abused its discretion by 

giving insufficient weight to the requirement that the sentence must not be greater than 

necessary to meet the § 3553(a) factors. But the court did consider the § 3553(a) factors 

and found that early release would frustrate specific deterrence, undermine the 

seriousness of Brooks’s conduct, and fail to promote respect for the law. The court 

needed to identify “just one good reason” for denying his motion, United States v. 

Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022), and its summation of the § 3553(a) factors, 

together with its orders denying Brooks’s other compassionate release motions, were 

more than enough. 

Brooks has filed six motions under § 3582 that are largely duplicative and assert 

an argument foreclosed by our precedent. See Von Vader, 58 F.4th at 371. We note that a 

recent amendment to § 1B1.13 now allows nonretroactive changes in the law to be 

considered for purposes of determining whether a defendant presents an extraordinary 

and compelling reason, so long as, among other things, the defendant has served at 

least ten years of his sentence. § 1B1.13(b)(6). (We do not comment on the Sentencing 

Commission’s authority to issue this change in its policy statement.) Brooks has not yet 

served ten years of his sentence, so he may not yet seek compassionate release based on 

a nonretroactive change in the law. We now warn him that he risks monetary sanctions 

and a filing bar under Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997), if he 

persists in prematurely seeking a sentence reduction that challenges the validity of his 

sentence. 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 24-2207 Document: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024 Pages: 3