United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 22, 2021*

Decided December 23, 2021

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 21‐1275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY RYAN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Indiana, South Bend Division.

No. 3:15‐CR‐62 RLM

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Timothy Ryan, a federal prisoner who previously tested positive for COVID‐19

but has not documented any adverse health effects from the virus, seeks compassionate

release to avoid another infection. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 21‐1275    Page 2

denied the motion because Ryan did not supply evidence that release would avert

serious illness. Because that decision was not an abuse of its discretion, we affirm.

In his motion and a supplement filed shortly after, Ryan argued that his health

and the conditions at his prison were “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for a

reduction in his sentence. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Ryan asserted that he contracted COVID‐19

three separate times, though he supplied evidence of only one positive test. He asserted

(also without medical evidence) that the repeated infections damaged his lungs, heart,

and nerves in unspecified ways. He feared (again, without providing medical support)

that the undocumented damage to his heart and lungs increases his risks from future

infections and that his prison cannot protect him.   

The district court denied the motion. It observed that “[c]ourts across the country

have been commuting sentences during this pandemic in the hopes of getting inmates

at high risk of death from COVID‐19 out of prisons with limited abilities to protect

inmates from infection.” But the court concluded that Ryan had not shown that it “can

better protect Mr. Ryan from the coronavirus by removing him from the prison

population.” Ryan moved to reconsider, repeating that he feared additional infections

would prove fatal. But the court denied that motion for the same reason.

On appeal, Ryan argues that the district court improperly disregarded the risks

he faces from COVID‐19 at his prison. But we conclude that, on the record before it, the

district court did not abuse its “considerable discretion” when it denied Ryan release.

United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1077 (7th Cir. 2021). Ryan had the burden of

establishing “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for a sentence reduction. United

States v. Newton, 996 F.3d 485, 488 (7th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). The district court

was aware that a risk of serious illness or death might justify release, but Ryan offered

no such evidence. He did not document any damage to his health after his past positive

COVID‐19 tests, serious risks that he faces from another infection, or lack of adequate

COVID‐19 precautions at his prison. In deciding that the virus is not a compelling

reason for release, district courts may not ignore medical evidence that a prisoner

supplies of his individualized risks from COVID‐19, such as health problems and poor

prison conditions. See id. at 489–91. But because Ryan did not furnish such evidence, the

court here permissibly found that Ryan’s fear of another COVID‐19 infection was not a

reason to reduce his sentence. See United States v. Manning, 5 F.4th 803, 807 (7th Cir.

2021) (ruling that district court reasonably denied compassionate release when prisoner

did not provide evidence of health issue increasing his risk from COVID‐19).
No. 21‐1275    Page 3

The above analysis is a sufficient basis to affirm. The government suggests that

we can also affirm based on our decisions in United States v. Ugbah, 4 F.4th 595 (7th Cir.

2021), and United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801 (7th Cir. 2021). But we do not reach this

alternative ground. Those cases explain that prisoners who have access to the vaccine

“cannot use the risk of COVID‐19 to obtain compassionate release.” Ugbah, 4 F.4th

at 597. Whether Ryan has safe access to the vaccine is not clear from the record. The

government states that Ryan twice refused a vaccine; Ryan responds that he wanted to

get vaccinated but was told (by whom is not specified) to avoid the vaccine because he

was sick, including from the aftermath of COVID‐19. We need not remand for the

district court to resolve this dispute because, as we stated above, Ryan did not provide

evidence of his individualized health risks or of inadequate COVID‐safety measures in

his prison.

AFFIRMED