United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2445 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. GREGORY SANFORD, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 12-cr-10069-JES — James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________

SUBMITTED JANUARY 5, 2021 ∗ — DECIDED JANUARY 25, 2021 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and ROVNER and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

∗ 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). 2 No. 20-2445

SYKES, Chief Judge. Gregory Sanford is serving a 15-year sentence in federal prison for a 2014 cocaine-trafficking conviction. He moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the COVID-19 pandemic. He did not, however, exhaust administrative remedies within the Bureau of Prisons before filing his motion. The govern- ment raised the exhaustion problem in the district court and also opposed Sanford’s release request on the merits. The judge skipped over the exhaustion question and proceeded directly to the merits, declining to reduce Sanford’s sentence. Sanford appealed. The government defends the judge’s decision on the merits but again raises the exhaustion problem, arguing that the exhaustion requirement in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a mandatory claim-processing rule and therefore must be enforced when properly invoked. Three circuits agree and none have held otherwise; we now join the emerging consensus. Sanford failed to comply with the exhaustion requirement before moving for compassionate release. The government properly raised the exhaustion issue in the district court and here. We therefore enforce the requirement and affirm the judgment, though on different grounds. I. Background In 2014 Sanford was convicted in the Central District of Illinois of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The judge imposed a sentence of 180 months in prison— 82 months below the bottom of the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. Sanford is currently housed in the federal correctional facility in Victorville, California, and has served roughly half of his sentence. No. 20-2445 3

On April 28, 2020, the warden at the Victorville prison received two written requests from Sanford seeking com- passionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Without waiting for a response from the warden or letting 30 days lapse without a response (as the statute requires), Sanford filed a pro se compassionate-release motion in the sentencing court just three days later, on May 1. The court appointed the Federal Defender’s Office to represent him, and counsel filed an amended motion. The amendment focused mostly on the risks of COVID-19 for prison populations generally. At the very end of the motion, however, counsel stated that Sanford “suffers from several health conditions, including stomach pain, shortness of breath, and anxiety,” though no details were provided. On May 14 the warden denied Sanford’s request, ex- plaining that § 3582(c)(1)(A) permits the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to ask the court to reduce a prisoner’s sentence for “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, but as a medically stable 38-year-old and considering the risks of the virus, Sanford’s circumstances did not satisfy this standard. The warden also explained that “[t]he BOP is taking extr