United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted April 19, 2022*

Decided April 20, 2022 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge 

CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

No. 21-2423 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

KEVIN GARDNER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 15 CR 379-6 

Gary Feinerman, 

Judge. 

 

O R D E R 

Kevin Gardner, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) based on his medical 

conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic. Gardner argues that the court provided 

insufficient explanation for its decision. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 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 
No. 21-2423 Page 2 

Gardner first moved for compassionate release nearly halfway into his 

147-month sentence for conspiring to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and 

associated offenses. He argued that his medical conditions (hypertension, migraines, 

and a slightly overweight body mass index of 26.1) heightened his risk from COVID-19, 

constituting an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He also maintained that he would not be a danger to the community 

if released. 

The district court denied the motion. The court concluded that Gardner had not 

shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction: His medical 

records did not reflect a hypertension diagnosis; migraines were not a COVID-19 risk 

factor; and his body mass index did not fall within the obesity range. The court also 

concluded that the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provided an independent basis for 

denying the motion—specifically, the “extremely serious” nature of Gardner’s offense 

conduct (participating in a large-scale heroin distribution scheme and plotting to kill a 

rival drug dealer) and criminal history (including robbery and aggravated battery). 

Because Gardner’s 147-month sentence represented a significant downward variance 

from his guidelines range (324–405 months), the court concluded that releasing him 

after he served less than half that sentence would be “highly inappropriate.” 

Gardner did not appeal the denial of his first motion and instead, six months 

later, filed a second compassionate-release motion. This time, he added that he had 

recently been diagnosed with asthma and kidney disease—which is described in his 

medical records as “chronic kidney disease, stage 2 (mild).” 

The court denied this motion as well. The court’s analysis was concise enough 

that we repeat it here in full: 

Just over six months ago, the court denied a compassionate release motion 

filed by Defendant. Defendant’s current request for compassionate release 

is no stronger than that earlier one. Defendant now has six months more of 

custody under his belt, but that is an insignificant consideration in light of 

the matters addressed in the court’s prior order. Medical records document 

Defendant’s recent diagnosis with stage 2 kidney disease and asthma, 

which are recognized COVID-19 risk factors. But Defendant is being 

properly medicated for those conditions and, of equal importance, the 

ready availability of vaccines in the BOP allows Defendant to make it highly 
No. 21-2423 Page 3 

unlikely that he will contract COVID-19 or suffer serious illness if he is 

infected. The fact that Defendant refused an offer of the Moderna COVID19 vaccine does not help his cause, as an inmate may not voluntarily 

exacerbate his COVID-19 risks by refusing a vaccine and then use that 

exacerbated risk to obtain release under 18 USC [§] 3582(c)(l)(A). 

 Gardner, who tells us that he has now been vaccinated, argues on appeal only 

that the district court’s denial of his second motion was insufficient to allow for 

meaningful appellate review. But the court adequately explained its thinking, and we 

are satisfied that the court exercised its discretion based on proper considerations. Most 

significantly, the court referred to its denial of Gardner’s initial motion and found his 

renewed motion “no stronger.” In denying that first motion, the court applied 

the § 3553(a) factors and determined that the “extremely serious” nature of Gardner’s 

offense and criminal history counseled against any further reduction of a belowguidelines sentence. Given that assessment, the court acted well within its discretion in 

rejecting Gardner’s argument that his asthma and kidney disease diagnoses changed 

the analysis. As we have reiterated, one good reason is sufficient to support a denial of 

compassionate release. See United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595, 598 (7th Cir. 2021). 

 Gardner relies on United States v. Hampton, 985 F.3d 530 (6th Cir. 2021), in which 

the Sixth Circuit vacated a denial of a compassionate-release motion because the district 

court’s two-sentence order left unclear whether it had relied on the inapplicable policy 

statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. But here the court articulated its reasoning based on 

appropriate factors, without mention of § 1B1.13, so we have no concern that the court 

may have relied on an impermissible factor. 

AFFIRMED