O R D E R
Jarmarco Moore, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his fourth motion for compassionate release. We affirm.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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
1
Moore pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and in 2022 was sentenced to 110 months' imprisonment and 3 years' supervised release. He filed a direct appeal but soon dismissed it voluntarily. Moore then filed three consecutive motions for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In his first motion Moore requested release because, he said, he suffered from various medical conditions and needed to take care of his children. In his second and third motions, Moore argued that he was entitled to compassionate release based on sentencing errors stemming from what he asserted was an improperly calculated guidelines range.
The district court denied each motion. In its order denying Moore's first and second motions, the court stated that an "excessive sentence" is not an "extraordinary and compelling reason[] for release under compassionate release." In its order denying his third motion, the court stated that Moore's "contest[] to his sentence" did not qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling" reason for his release. The court considered the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in both orders and separately concluded that Moore's criminal history and the seriousness of his offense warranted denial of his motions. We affirmed. United States v. Moore, No. 23-1651, 2023 WL 7018292 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023); United States v. Moore, No. 23-2919, 2024 WL 890003 (7th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024). Moore filed a fourth motion for compassionate release, which is the subject of this appeal. This time Moore argued that the district court erred at sentencing in calculating his guidelines range because, according to him, it should not have assigned two criminal history points for a prior conviction in Arizona. Moore stated that his prison sentence in that case was suspended and he served three years' probation. Therefore, he argued, that conviction supports only one point in the criminal history category. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2.
The district court entered a text order denying Moore's motion. The court stated that it would not revisit the issues Moore raised in his past three motions because the court had already rejected those arguments. The court further stated that even if Moore could demonstrate eligibility for compassionate release, it stood on its previous conclusion that the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weighed against granting compassionate release.
On appeal Moore first argues that the district court erred by relying on its denials of his previous motions for compassionate release because he raised new arguments in
2
this motion. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Black, 131 F.4th 542, 545 (7th Cir. 2025). A district court must reason through the defendant's arguments when denying a motion for compassionate release. Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 501 (2022). But even a one-sentence explanation may be sufficient if it demonstrates how the court exercised its discretion. See United States v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475, 477-78 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the district court relied on the same reasoning conveyed in its previous orders denying Moore's motions for compassionate release. Although in his fourth motion Moore raised a different theory as to why his guidelines calculation is incorrect, we have already explained in his previous appeals that a challenge to his original sentence cannot support a finding of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Moore, 2023 WL 7018292 at *2; Moore, 2024 WL 890003 at *1; see also United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 465 (7th Cir. 2022). Moore again impermissibly challenges his original sentence in this motion, and he raises no new extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, such as changes in health or family circumstances. See Rutherford v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1331 (2026). The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to revisit its conclusion that Moore's attempt to challenge his sentence is not an "extraordinary and compelling"
reason for release. See United States v. Von Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023). Moore also asserts that the district court erred by failing to reconsider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But "[b]efore determining the extent of a reduction based on the § 3553(a) factors, a court must first ensure that a movant … can offer 'extraordinary and compelling' reasons that 'warrant' compassionate release."
Rutherford, 146 S. Ct. at 1333 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). The district court, which needed to offer "just one good reason for denying" Moore's motion, United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022), determined that Moore presented no new extraordinary and compelling reason for release. It did not abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider the § 3553(a) factors.
AFFIRMED
3