United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 5, 2022*

Decided May 5, 2022 

Before

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge

No. 21-3108 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

KEITH CARR, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 11 CR 682 

Elaine E. Bucklo, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

Keith Carr, a federal inmate who is overweight, moved for compassionate release 

based on health risks from COVID-19 and his contention that his 20-year sentence 

would not be mandatory today. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 21-3108 Page 2 

his request, reasoning that he was vaccinated and that post-sentencing changes in the 

law did not justify his early release. The court did not abuse its discretion, so we affirm. 

In 2016, a jury found Carr guilty of crimes that he committed in his role as the 

leader of a drug trafficking conspiracy. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1); 842(b); 846. Because 

the government filed notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 of Carr’s prior conviction in Illinois 

for felony drug possession, he was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 20 years 

in prison. We dismissed his direct appeal. United States v. Carr, 695 F. App’x 953 

(7th Cir. 2017). And his later efforts to obtain collateral relief were unsuccessful. Carr v. 

United States, No. 19-2033 (7th Cir. May 12, 2020); Carr v. United States, No. 20-1123 

(7th Cir. Feb. 3, 2020); Carr v. Kallis, No. 21-2439, 2021 WL 5814234 (8th Cir. July 20, 

2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 837 (Jan. 10, 2022). His projected release date is in June 2030. 

Carr moved, pro se, for compassionate release in June 2021. He argued that his 

continued imprisonment was unjust because it was based on a state conviction that was 

no longer a felony drug predicate under § 851, and because the enhancement created an 

unwarranted sentencing disparity among his codefendants. He also insisted that the 

court wrongly determined at his original sentencing that the state conviction qualified 

as a predicate because he had received only probation for it. Finally, he contended that, 

despite his vaccination, his weight increased his risk of problems from COVID-19. The 

government responded that none of these grounds justified an early release. 

The district court denied the motion, first ruling that changes to the law did not 

permit a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Further, Carr’s sentence was within 

the new guidelines range and any sentencing disparity was warranted because he led 

the drug conspiracy. Next, the court concluded that any risk of complications from 

COVID-19 were low regardless of Carr’s weight: he was fully vaccinated, most inmates 

and staff at the prison were vaccinated, and the prison had no active cases. Under the 

prisoner-mailbox rule, Carr timely appealed. FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)(1).

Carr first argues that he was entitled to relief based on flaws in the original 

mandatory sentence: His state conviction never should have triggered the enhanced 

sentence, intervening law has clarified that the conviction is not a felony drug predicate, 

and his lengthy sentence created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The district 

court’s ruling to the contrary was not an abuse of its discretion, however. Changes in 

sentencing law are not extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. 

See United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th 569, 574 (7th Cir. 2021). Nor is a motion for 

compassionate release the proper way to remedy a potential error in the original 

sentence. See United States v. Martin, 21 F.4th 944, 946 (7th Cir. 2021). Allowing Carr to 
No. 21-3108 Page 3 

obtain relief on either ground would bypass the normal means of challenging a 

sentence, which he has already exhausted. Id. 

Carr also contends that the court improperly relied on his vaccination status. He 

points out that being overweight puts him at a higher risk of complications from 

COVID-19, that vaccinated inmates have become reinfected with the virus, and that the 

number of positive cases at his prison has increased since the denial of his motion. But, 

the district court reasonably concluded that Carr’s risk of contracting COVID-19 is not 

an extraordinary and compelling reason for release now that, as the record shows, he 

has been fully vaccinated. See United States v. Broadfield, 5 F.4th 801, 802–03 (7th Cir. 

2021). Although Carr argues that the virus has evolved, he did not establish that he is 

especially vulnerable to COVID-19 notwithstanding his vaccination. See United States v. 

Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022). The district court properly considered Carr’s 

weight along with his vaccination, the high vaccination rate at his prison, and the lack 

of reported infections. And although Carr points to an increased number of positive 

cases since the district court’s ruling, we are limited to reviewing the evidence that was 

before the district court at the time of decision. See United States v. Howell, 958 F.3d 589, 

595 (7th Cir. 2020). 

AFFIRMED