United States v. Gunn, 20-1959
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
| Citation | 980 F.3d 1178 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1959,20-1959 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tequila J. GUNN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
980 F.3d 1178
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tequila J. GUNN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-1959
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued November 17, 2020
Decided November 20, 2020
Ronald Len Hanna, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter W. Henderson, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Easterbrook, Hamilton, and St. Eve, Circuit Judges.
Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
980 F.3d 1179
Federal judges have long been able to release prisoners for compassionate reasons such as terminal illness. Until recently that authority depended on a motion by the Bureau of Prisons. But in 2018 the First Step Act created a judicial power to grant compassionate release on a prisoner's own request, provided that the prisoner first allowed the Bureau to review the request and make a recommendation (or it let 30 days pass in silence). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Subsection (c) now reads:
The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—
(1) in any case—
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or
(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]
Tequila Gunn's sentence for drug and firearm offenses runs through March 2024. She asked a court to order her release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) on the ground that, because of her age (62) and medical condition, she faces extra risks should she contract COVID-19. Gunn sought administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
1311 practice notes
-
United States v. Eccleston, No. CR 95-0014 JB
...discretion has been abused. In this way the Commission's analysis can guide discretion without being conclusive.United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). Even if the Tenth Circuit considers the Policy Statement inapplicable, it should, in the Court's view, allow district c......
-
United States v. Bridgewater, No. 20-2413
...States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Sanford , 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020). We have also recently issued numerous non-precedential orders affirming the denial or dismissal of such motions.2 This case i......
-
United States v. Wilford, CRIMINAL ELH-11-258
...v. Zullo, 976 F.3d 228, 230 (2nd Cir. 2020); 70 United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100-02 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). In other words, the policy statement does not apply to this Court. Indeed, “[a]s of now, there is no Sentencing Commiss......
-
United States v. Byrd, Criminal ELH-11-657
...v. Zullo, 976 F.3d 228, 230 (2nd Cir. 2020); United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100-02 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). In other words, the policy statement does not apply to the court. Indeed, “[a]s of now, there is no Sentencing Commission ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1307 cases
-
United States v. Eccleston, No. CR 95-0014 JB
...discretion has been abused. In this way the Commission's analysis can guide discretion without being conclusive.United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). Even if the Tenth Circuit considers the Policy Statement inapplicable, it should, in the Court's view, allow district c......
-
United States v. Bridgewater, No. 20-2413
...States v. Saunders , 986 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Sanford , 986 F.3d 779 (7th Cir. 2021) ; United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020). We have also recently issued numerous non-precedential orders affirming the denial or dismissal of such motions.2 This case i......
-
United States v. Wilford, CRIMINAL ELH-11-258
...v. Zullo, 976 F.3d 228, 230 (2nd Cir. 2020); 70 United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100-02 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). In other words, the policy statement does not apply to this Court. Indeed, “[a]s of now, there is no Sentencing Commiss......
-
United States v. Byrd, Criminal ELH-11-657
...v. Zullo, 976 F.3d 228, 230 (2nd Cir. 2020); United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1100-02 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020). In other words, the policy statement does not apply to the court. Indeed, “[a]s of now, there is no Sentencing Commission ......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Notable Seventh Circuit discussion of how a combination of factors can amount to "extraordinary and compelling reasons”"
...the threshold is committed to the discretion of district judges, with deferential appellate review. See United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020). Our point, rather, is that no matter how the threshold is defined, a combination of factors may move any given prisoner past it, even......
3 books & journal articles
-
"EXTRAORDINARY AND COMPELLING" CIRCUMSTANCES: REVISITING THE ROLE OF COMPASSIONATE RELEASE IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE WAKE OF THE FIRST STEP ACT.
...Brown, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 449. (156.) See, e.g., United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 234 (2d Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d271, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. (157.)......
-
Weekly Case Digests July 5, 2021 July 9, 2021.
...of his lengthy sentence for such serious crimes. After the district court denied Black's motion, we decided United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020), which held that the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" issue was, in the wake of the First Step Act of 2018, no longer govern......
-
Sentence Modification Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.
...of his lengthy sentence for such serious crimes. After the district court denied Black's motion, we decided United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178 (7th Cir. 2020), which held that the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" issue was, in the wake of the First Step Act of 2018, no longer govern......