Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02149/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Foley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 16, 2025*

Decided January 21, 2025 

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 24-2149 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL FOLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:12-cr-00133-SEB-TAB-11 

Sarah Evans Barker, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Michael Foley, who was convicted of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 

appeals the district judge’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence. The judge 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 24-2149 Document: 13 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2149 Page 2 

denied Foley’s motion based on her analysis of the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). Because the judge adequately justified her decision, we affirm.

In August 2013, Foley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2010). 

Because of a prior felony drug offense in Indiana, Foley’s minimum sentence was 

20 years in prison. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851 (2010). Based on a total offense level of 

35 and a criminal history category of VI, the guidelines range for imprisonment was 

292 to 365 months. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(c)(1), 3E1.1(a)–(b), 5A. The judge imposed

300 months’ imprisonment and 10 years’ supervised release.

In February 2024, roughly 11 years before his projected release date, Foley 

moved to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing two

extraordinary and compelling reasons: sexual abuse he endured while in prison, 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(4)(A), and his unusually long sentence, U.S.S.G. § 1.B1.13(b)(6). 

Regarding the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), he argued that the time he 

already had served reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the 

law, provided just punishment, and would deter any future criminal conduct; that his 

age (42 years old) made him a low risk for recidivism; and that he had been 

rehabilitated in that he had housing, employment, and substance-abuse treatment lined 

up upon his release.

The district judge denied the motion. She assumed without deciding that Foley 

had established that the sexual abuse he endured while incarcerated was an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduced sentence. (Because the abuse 

constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason, the judge did not address Foley’s 

second argument that his unusually long sentence similarly qualified.) After 

considering the factors under § 3553(a), however, the judge concluded that a sentence 

reduction was not warranted. The judge explained that Foley’s rehabilitative

accomplishments were outweighed by the seriousness of the crime, his extensive 

criminal history, his disciplinary record while incarcerated, his prior failure to comply 

with the requirements of his work-release program, and the substantial time remaining 

on his sentence.

On appeal, Foley first argues that the district judge abused her discretion in 

weighing the sentencing factors under § 3553(a). He contends that the judge gave too 

much weight to his lengthy prison disciplinary history, which was based on 13 drug 

violations he accumulated from 2015 to 2022. Foley, who has been addicted to heroin 

since age 17, asserts that he received those violations because he was not receiving 

Case: 24-2149 Document: 13 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2149 Page 3 

adequate drug treatment in prison and was forced to self-medicate. Foley says that he 

has not received any infractions since being placed in an addiction-treatment program 

in the prison. Foley also contends that the judge overlooked that he was convicted of a 

non-violent offense.

The district judge did not abuse her discretion. Foley did not present the

mitigating argument about his drug violations in the district court, so the judge could

not have considered it. See United States v. Clayton, 811 F.3d 918, 921 n.1 (7th Cir. 2016). 

And, in any event, the judge provided several other valid reasons that a sentence 

reduction was not appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors: Foley’s offense was serious, 

he had an extensive criminal history (including nine prior felony convictions), he had 

failed to comply with the requirements of his work-release program, and reducing his 

sentence while substantial time remained to be served would not promote respect for 

the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (2)(D). Because the judge was required to 

provide only “[o]ne good reason” to deny Foley’s motion, her decision not to explicitly 

address whether Foley’s offense was non-violent is irrelevant. United States v. Ugbah, 

4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Sarno, 37 F.4th 1249, 1254 (7th Cir. 

2022). 

Foley next argues that the district judge erred by failing to consider his argument 

that his sentence was unusually long. We disagree. The judge already had assumed that 

Foley presented an extraordinary and compelling reason under U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13(b)(4)(A), and concluded that a reduction was not warranted under the 

§ 3553(a) factors in any event. See United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 

2021) (“Because of the importance of the § 3553(a) factors, courts are not compelled to 

release every prisoner with extraordinary and compelling [reasons for release].”); 

United States v. Williams, 65 F.4th 343, 349 (7th Cir. 2023) (analysis of the § 3553(a) factors 

is an independent basis for denying a motion to reduce a sentence). 

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-2149 Document: 13 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3