United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted June 10, 2021*

Decided June 10, 2021 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge 

No. 21-1015 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ANDRAE L. DOTSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

Nos. 15-cr-172-pp & 17-cr-145-LA 

Pamela Pepper, 

Chief Judge. 

O R D E R 

Andrae Dotson, a 32-year-old federal inmate, sought compassionate release, 

alleging that his health conditions and race put him at risk of serious complications 

from COVID-19. The district court accepted that Dotson’s health conditions made him 

especially vulnerable to COVID-19, but it denied his motion because of the seriousness 

*

 We have agreed to decide this 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 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 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 21-1015 Page 2 

of his offense and his high risk of reoffending. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Because the 

court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. 

Dotson is currently serving consecutive prison sentences. He pleaded guilty to 

illegally possessing a firearm as a felon in Case No. 15-cr-172, and the district court 

sentenced him to supervised release. While serving that term, police officers stopped 

him in a car and found illegal drugs and a loaded firearm. He again pleaded guilty to 

possessing a firearm as a felon in Case No. 17-cr-145 and was sentenced to 60 months in 

prison. Because this offense also violated the conditions of his supervised release in the 

2015 case, the court imposed a 5-month consecutive sentence for the revocation. 

In 2020, Dotson moved for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 

He asserted that he was especially vulnerable to severe complications from COVID-19 

due to his health problems—including obesity (BMI of 38.5) and hypertension—as well 

as his race (African American). He emphasized that this is his first prison sentence (for 

prior convictions, he received supervised release or probation), he has had no prison 

disciplinary violations, he has engaged in numerous prison educational programs, and 

he is unlikely to reoffend because he “learned [his] lessons” and is “sorry.” He also 

described many problems with his prison’s conditions—including inadequate mental 

health care, a lack of warm and healthy food, and filthy solitary cells with limited access 

to entertainment or time outdoors. His suffering in prison, he argued, would motivate 

him to avoid future criminal activity. 

After consolidating Dotson’s cases to address his identical motions, the district 

court denied relief on November 25, 2020. The court expressed “concern and sympathy” 

for Dotson and accepted that his health conditions made him especially vulnerable to 

COVID-19. But the court emphasized that his offenses were serious and that past 

punishment had not deterred him: A year after receiving a lenient sentence for his first 

federal gun crime, he “was caught in a rolling drug house with a loaded gun capable of 

firing thirty rounds without reloading.” 

On December 3, Dotson filed a document that he called a “motion to appeal,” in 

which he argued that the court had made a “clerical error” in its order; when the court 

stated how much time Dotson had left on his sentence, it failed to credit him with the 

10 months he had spent in jail before sentencing. (The court said that he had served 

“only two years and four months of a five-year, five-month sentence.”) The district 

court construed this filing as a motion for reconsideration and denied it on 

December 16. The court acknowledged that, based on the information Dotson provided, 

he had served closer to 60% of his sentence than the 50% the court had stated in its 
No. 21-1015 Page 3 

decision. Even so, the court refused to reconsider its decision to deny release because 

the decision was based on factors other than Dotson’s time served. 

On January 4, 2021, the district court received both Dotson’s notice of appeal and 

a “petition to amend” his motion for compassionate release, in which he disclosed that 

he had recently tested positive for COVID-19. The envelope containing the notice of 

appeal confirms that prison staff responsible for legal mail had received it on 

December 23, 2020, and thus it was timely under the prison mailbox rule. See FED. R.

APP. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii); Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 859 (7th Cir. 2015). The district 

court construed the “petition” as a second post-judgment motion, and it declined to rule 

because it determined that Dotson’s notice of appeal (which he had placed in the mail 

first) divested it of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 

459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); United States v. McHugh, 528 F.3d 538, 540 (7th Cir. 2008). 

On appeal, Dotson presents two sets of arguments. First, he asks to be released 

based on the new information that he contracted COVID-19. Only the district courts are 

empowered to modify sentences under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), however, so we cannot go 

beyond the record before the district court at the time of its ruling. See United States 

v. Howell, 958 F.3d 589, 595 (7th Cir. 2020). With respect to that record, Dotson reiterates 

that he is at heightened risk from COVID-19 because of his health conditions and race, 

and that he has a low risk of reoffending because he has participated in rehabilitative 

programs and suffered greatly during his confinement. He does not identify any error 

with the district court’s assessment of these factors, other than asserting that they 

should have compelled the court to grant his release. 

When we review the denial of a motion for compassionate release, we do not 

replace our judgment for that of the district court; we ask only whether the district court 

abused its discretion. 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 health concerns.” Id. Here, the 

district court reasonably determined that the § 3553(a) factors did not support Dotson’s 

early release. The court emphasized that Dotson’s most recent offense was particularly 

serious because he committed it while on supervised release for a very similar crime. 

Serving his full sentence was necessary to protect the public and provide specific 

deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reconsider its 

decision based on a misstatement about the time remaining on Dotson’s sentence. 

See United States v. Dean, 550 F.3d 626, 628 (7th Cir. 2008). Factual inaccuracies require 
No. 21-1015 Page 4 

remand only if they affected the court’s decision. See United States v. Pennington, 

908 F.3d 234, 240 (7th Cir. 2018). The relatively short time Dotson had served factored 

into the district court’s concern about depreciating the seriousness of the offense, but 

nothing suggests that the exact number of months was dispositive. And the district 

court concluded that several other § 3553 factors weighed against immediate release. 

To the extent Dotson argues in the alternative that he should be transferred to 

home confinement, the district court rightly determined that it lacked the authority to 

fulfill his request. See Saunders, 986 F.3d at 1078. Even in home confinement, Dotson 

would still be in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which has plenary control 

over inmate placement. Id.; see also Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 

(CARES Act), § 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). 

One final note: Dotson asserts on appeal, as he did in the district court, that he 

was kept in restrictive housing (pending assignment to a housing unit) at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana longer than necessary because of his 

race and that he was subjected to deplorable conditions. (He has since been transferred 

to the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri.) Mistreatment 

or poor conditions in prison, if proved, might be grounds for relief in a civil lawsuit, see

Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), but untested allegations 

of this nature are not grounds for a sentence reduction. 

AFFIRMED