# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 10 , 20 2 1 * Decided June 14 , 20 2 1

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE , Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD , Circuit Judge

No. 20

- 3097

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v

.

LAZARICK KING , Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois , Eastern Division.

No. 15 CR 0178

Robert W. Gettleman , Judge

.

O R D E R
Lazarick King, a 46

- year

- old federal inmate in prison for tax fraud , sought compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) , arguing that his obesity put him at heightened risk of serious complications from COVID

- 19. The district court denied his request. It reason ed that even if the risk caused by his obesity was an

“ extraordinary and compelling reason ” for his release, the sentencing factors of

* 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. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2) (C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 20

- 3097 Page 2

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , which i t must consider, weighed against his release

. Because the court did not abuse its discretion, w e affirm.

After serv ing about one

- third of his 84

- month sentence for aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and mail fraud , see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1), 13 41, 1343 , King unsuccessfully moved for compassionate release. He had pleaded guilty based on evidence that , over the course of four years, he deceived hundreds of vulnerable victims into furnishing the ir personal identifying information , which he used to file false tax returns and steal nearly one million dollars in tax refunds. In his motion for early release , King i nitially argued that two health conditions

— hypertension and asthma

— put him at serious risk from COVID

- 19. Further, he argued that his post

- sentencing conduct weighed in favor of his immediate release . (S ince his incarceration, he ha d

s ecured prison work, acquired marketable job skills, taken educational classes, and completed drug abuse education. ) Th at conduct , he said, combined with his low s core on a risk

- assessment tool , his assignment to a low

- security prison, his age, and his non

violent past , showed that he would not en danger the community if released. But t he district court denied King’s motion . Focusing on the evidence of his health issues only, the court stat ed that King “failed to demonstrate that his medical cond itions constitute ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons ’ ” for his release. The court invited King to file “a subsequent motion should his medical or physical condition worsen.”
King timely moved the court to reconsider , adding evidence of another health

c ondition

— obesity

— to which the government responded by highlight ing King’s criminality

. King argued that his body mass index was above the threshold cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for risk of severe COVID

- 19 illness

. T he government conceded that King’s obesity was an “extraordinary and compelling

reason ” for his release , but it still opposed his motion . It argued that King pose d a danger to the community b ecause his tax

- fraud crimes , whi le not violent, i nflicted

severe economic harm on his victims and the public

. It also cited King’ s decades

- long criminal history, which include d increasingly serious convictions for theft and fraud

.
The district court denied the motion to reconsider. It concluded that , even if King ’s risk from COVID

- 19 was an “ extraordinary and compelling reason ” for release, the § 3553(a) factors weighed against it

. The court cited the seriousness of King’s offense

— “ an extensive, four

- year long identity theft scheme with multiple victims”

— for which King had not served even half of his prison term. It also relied on his extensive criminal history

— “literally decades of fraudulent behavior

. ” Based on these factors, t he court rejected King’s argument that he pose d no danger to the community

.No. 20

- 3097 Page 3

On appeal, King argues that the district court should have ordered his early release

. W e review denial s of compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). “B ecause of the importance of the § 3553(a) factors, courts are not compelled to release every prisoner with extraordinary and compelling health concerns.” Id. F or two reasons , the district co urt reasonably de cided that th ose health concerns , even if concededly extraordinary, did not support King’s release

. First, it considered but permissibly rejected King’s “principal arguments,” see United States v. Newton , 996 F.3d 485, 4 89 (7th Cir. 2021)

— that he was un likely to reoffend

. I t had ample reason to conclude that, based on his decades of recidivism , s ee 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) , his contention that he was suddenly reformed was unpers uasive

. Second , the court also r easonably determined that reducing King’s sentence by more than half , as he wanted, would not reflect the seriousness of his admitted crim es of cheating vulnerable taxpayers out of refunds worth nearly a million dollars

. See id. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
King respo nds t hat the court unreasonably found him too dangerous for release because it permitted him to be released on bond before his trial and because the Federal Bureau of Prisons placed him in a low

- security facility. We are unpersuaded. King cites no authorit y suggesting that a district court ’s broad discretion in compassionate

- release decisions is constrained by pretrial bond or facility

- placement decisions , and nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) supports that interpretation. Moreover , pretrial release and facility

- placement decisions are fundamentally different from compassionate

- release decisions , which require the court to consider whether a prisoner , who has been convicted, has received adequate punishment for his crim e s

. Lastly , King argues in the alternative that he should be transferred to home confinement, but we lack the authority to fulfill his request. See Saunders , 986 F.3d at 1078. The Bureau has plenary control over its inmates’ placements. Id.

AFFIRM ED