### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 20-2486
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. J AMES S AUNDERS, Defendant-Appellant

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Il linois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cr-00797-1— Andrea R. Wood , Judge

.

____________________
S UBMITTED F EBRUARY 5, 2021 

— D ECIDED F EBRUARY 8, 2021

____________________

Before W OOD , S CUDDER , and S T

. E VE , Circuit Judges

. S T

. E VE , Circuit Judge . James Saunders, a federal inmate serving a 5-year sentence for weapons tra ffi cking, moved for

 We have agreed to decide the ca se without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C)

.2 No. 20-2486

compassionate release or transfer to home con fi nement in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and his health problems. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Accepting that Saunders’s health circumstances were ext raordinary and compelling, the court nonetheless denied the motion after applying the factorsof 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It concluded that release was unwarranted because of the seriousness of Saunders’s crime and thesubstantial portion of his sentence remaining. Because the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, we a ffi rm. Saunders pleaded guilty to dealing in fi rearms without a license, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), and possessing a fi rearm as a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Saunders and his codefendants unlawfully obtained fi rearms in Missouri and sold them to Chicago buyers who they knew planned to use the guns illegally. These fi rearms included semiautomatic weapons that came equipped with or could accept large-capacity magazines. Saunders was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment in January 2020. Six months later, in June 2020, Saunders asked the court for compassionate release or, alternatively, to transfer him to home con fi nement because his health put him at serious risk from the novel coronavirus. He argued that his history of chronic bronchitis, type 2 diab etes, blood clots, a heart a tt ack,other heart problems, diabetic neuropathy, and hypertension—combined with the COVID-19 pandemic—provided “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to release him. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The district court denied th e motion. Both the court and government stipulated that Saunders’s health circumstances were extraordinary and compelling. But in considering theNo. 20-2486 3

§ 3553(a) factors, the court foun d that those factors weighed against release for two reasons. First, it emphasized that fi rearms tra ffi cking is a serious crime that fuels the ongoing gun violence in Chicago, citing a report from its mayor’s o ffi ce. See City of Chicago, O ffi ce of the Mayor, Gun Trace Report 2017 at 8, h tt ps://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/ d epts/ mayor / Press%20Room/Press%20Releases/2017/October/GTR 2017.pdf (“[T]he majority of illegally used or possessed fi rearms recovered in Chicago are traced back to states [including Missouri] with less regulation over fi rearms....”). Second, it noted that Saunders had served only 19 months (including time served before sentencing) of his 60-month sentence. Itconcluded that releasing Saunders with two-thirds of his sentence remaining would undermine the gravity of his o ff ense. (It also remarked that Saunde rs had not demonstrated that the Bureau of Prisons was unable to control the spread ofCOVID-19 in his facility.) The court did not address Saunders’s alternate request to fi nish his sentence in home con fi nement. But, with commendable diligence, the court did respond to Saunders’s serious health conditions by recommending that the Bureau of Pr isons place him in a medical facility, and it has done so. Saunders argues on appeal that the district court erred by requiring him to remain in prison. Focusing on the pandemic, he contends that he is in danger from COVID-19 even at his new facility. He points to on going COVID-19 cases among fellow inmates and the impossibili ty of maintaining social distance in prison. We review a dist rict court’s denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir 2020).4 No. 20-2486

The court did not abuse its broad discretion in fi nding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release despite the threat that Saunders faces from COVID-19. Under 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may release a prisoner for compassionate reasons only if, “after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a),” it fi nds extraordinary and compelling reasons. Because of the importance of the § 3553(a) factors, courtsare not compelled to release every prisoner with extraordinary and compelling health concerns. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). And here the court reasonably weighed those factor s. It emphasized that Saunders commi tt ed the serious o ff ense of selling unlawfully obtained fi rearms with large-capacity magazines knowing that the buyer intended to use them unlawfully. And it permissibly ruled that excusing him from two-thirds of his sentence for this crime would not promote respect for the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A); United States v. Pawlowski,967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020) (upholding district court’s denial of compassionate release ba sed on time remaining in petitioner’s sentence). As an aside, we note that, in permissibly denying relief, the district court considered it self constrained by the Sentencing Commission’s criteria for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Although we have since held that § 1B1.13 does not apply when the prisoner, rather than the Bureau, moves for compassionate release, Gunn , 980 F.3d at 1180, any error was harmless because the court found that Saunders met the criteria. Finally, Saunders argues that the district court should have considered his alternate request for transfer to home

con fi nement. But the court lacked authority to changeNo. 20-2486 5

Saunders’s place of imprisonme nt. An inmate in home confi nement remains in custody of the Bureau. United States v. Ko , 739 F.3d 558, 561 (10th Cir 2014). The Bureau (and under the CARES Act, the A tt orney General) has plenary control over its inmates’ placement. See Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), § 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020); Tapia v. United States , 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011). A district court may only recommend a new placement; it may not order it. Tapia , 564 U.S. at 331; 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B). Thus, the districtcourt did not err by declining to review the merits of a request that it had no power to grant. The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.