United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted October 17, 2022*

Decided October 18, 2022 

Before 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

Nos. 22-1491 & 22-1538 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

SERGIO GARCIA, SR., 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeals from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Indiana, Hammond Division. 

No. 2:16CR89-PPS 

Philip P. Simon, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

This order addresses two appeals from Sergio Garcia, Sr., a federal prisoner; we 

have consolidated them for disposition. First, Garcia appeals the denial of his motion 

for compassionate release, which was based on the COVID-19 pandemic. See 18 U.S.C. 

*

 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 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 
Nos. 22-1491 & 22-1538 Page 2 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Second, he appeals the denial of his motion for release on bond while 

his compassionate-release motion and a separate motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (denied 

on July 18, 2022) were pending. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Garcia’s motion for compassionate release, and his motion for release on bond 

is baseless, we affirm. 

We begin with the motion for compassionate release. Garcia pleaded guilty in 

2018 to conspiring to commit mail fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and was sentenced to 

70 months in prison. Garcia filed six previous, unsuccessful motions for compassionate 

release, almost all in 2020 and 2021 during earlier phases of the pandemic. His current 

motion differs from the others in that the prison was in “Code Red” status (because of 

an outbreak of COVID cases) at the time he filed it. He argued that this status and his 

health (in a previous motion for release, he wrote that a healthcare worker classified 

him as at “high risk” for severe illness or death from COVID-19) were extraordinary 

and compelling reasons for early release. The government opposed the motion. First, it 

furnished all the administrative requests for compassionate release that the Bureau of 

Prisons had received from Garcia; none matched the contentions in his current motion. 

Second, it supplied evidence that the Bureau now classifies Garcia in the lowest 

healthcare level, which is reserved for inmates who have easily managed conditions. 

Third, it pointed out that Garcia refused the COVID vaccine twice. 

The district court denied Garcia’s motion, giving three reasons. First, it found 

that he had not exhausted administrative remedies. Second, it decided that he lacked an 

extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Although COVID-19 cases at Garcia’s 

prison were high when he filed his motion, the court observed that they had since fallen 

to “modest” levels; moreover, it found that Garcia had no current respiratory issues. 

Third, it ruled that, even if Garcia had presented an extraordinary and compelling 

reason for release, the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support release. 

Emphasizing the complexity and breadth of Garcia’s fraud scheme, the court concluded 

that reducing Garcia’s sentence would not reflect the seriousness of his crime. 

On appeal, Garcia argues that the district court wrongly denied his motion for 

compassionate release. We review the denial of his motion for abuse of discretion, 

United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021), and the court’s factual 

findings for clear error, United States v. Gamble, 969 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2020). Garcia 

challenges each of the district court’s rulings. He contends that he raised his current 

request with the warden and therefore exhausted administrative remedies; his asserted 
Nos. 22-1491 & 22-1538 Page 3 

health concerns and the COVID-19 outbreak at his prison were extraordinary and 

compelling reasons for release; and his good conduct in prison and the length of his 

sentence justify early release. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, and none of 

its factual findings is clearly erroneous. First, the district court reasonably accepted the 

government’s evidence that Garcia did not exhaust his administrative remedies before 

filing his latest motion. That evidence consists of the Bureau’s record of Garcia’s 

administrative requests for compassionate release, and no request clearly corresponds 

to his current motion. The exhaustion requirement is a mandatory rule that the court 

must (as it did here) enforce because the government properly invoked it and 

adequately proved it. United States v. Sanford, 986 F.3d 779, 782 (7th Cir. 2021). 

Second, Garcia supplied no evidence showing that the district court clearly erred 

in finding that COVID-19 rates at his prison are now “modest” or that Garcia, to whom 

the Bureau had twice offered the vaccine, was now in manageable health. It would have 

been an abuse of discretion for the district court to grant a motion for release to an 

inmate like Garcia who (for no apparent reason) refused the COVID vaccine and is 

housed in a prison with low incidences of COVID cases. See United States v. Ugbah, 

4 F.4th 595, 597 (7th Cir. 2021). Garcia responds that vaccines are no longer offered at 

his prison and the prison no longer tests for COVID. But he does not offer proof of these 

claims or dispute (or explain why) he refused the vaccine twice. 

Third, even if Garcia had presented an extraordinary and compelling reason for 

release, the court justified its ruling by explaining that the § 3553(a) factors did not favor 

release because, despite Garcia’s conduct in prison, his extensive mail fraud was serious 

and required that he serve his full sentence. See Saunders, 986 F.3d at 1078. Moreover, 

sentence length does not by itself supply an extraordinary and compelling reason for 

early release. See United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021). 

We now briefly turn to Garcia’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion 

for release on bond. Garcia sought release pending the district court’s resolution of his 

compassionate-release motion or his collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because 

we have rejected Garcia’s compassionate-release appeal, his request for release pending 

that resolution is baseless. And in light of the district court’s denial of Garcia’s § 2255 

motion on July 18, 2022, Garcia’s request for release pending the district court’s 

resolution of that motion is likewise baseless. We note that the § 2255 denial is now the 
Nos. 22-1491 & 22-1538 Page 4 

subject of a separate appeal, No. 22-2626. If Garcia has a nonfrivolous basis for 

renewing his motion in that appeal, Circuit Rule 9 permits an appropriate motion there. 

AFFIRMED