A L D

- 1 5 8 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THI RD CIRC UIT

___ _

___ ____

No. 20

- 2 9 9 4

___________

U

NITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MAHMOUD AGUIB I

, App ellant

____ _____ ____________________ _______

O n Appe al from the United States District Court

for the E a s t e rn District of P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. C r i m i n a l No. 2

- 15

- cr

- 00599

- 001 )

D istr ict Judge: P a u l S

. D i a m o n d

______________ ________ _

____ __ _

__ ____

Submitt e d o n A p p e l l e e ’ s M o t i o n f o r S umm a ry A ction

P ursuant t o Thi rd Circu it LAR 2 7.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 22, 2021

Before: MCKEE, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : J une 25, 2021 )

__ _______

OPINION *

_________

PER CURI AM

M a h m o u d A g u i b i a p p e a l s p r o s e f r o m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g h i s

* This disposition i s not an opinion of the fu ll C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

consti tute binding preced ent.2 m o t i o n f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e p u r s u a n t t o 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i )

. T h e

G o v e r n m e n t h a s fi l e d a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y a f f

i r m a n c e

. F o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s

, w e

g r a n t t h e G o v e rn m e n t ’ s m o t i o n a n d w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f

i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t

.

I

.

In t h e f a l l o f 2 0 1 5

, A g u i b i r o b b e d t e n d e l i v e ry m e n a t g u n p o i n t i n P h i l a d e l p h i a

. H e

p l e a d e d g u i l t y i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o f i v e c o u n t s o f H o b b s A c t r o b b e ry

, i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 5 1 ( a )

, a n d t w o c o u n t s o f u s i n g

, c a rr y i n g

, a n d b r a n d i s h i n g a f i r e a r m d u r i n g

a n d i n r e l a t i o n t o t w o o f t h e r o b b e r i e s

, i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 )

. A g u i b i was

sentenced to 1 8 0 months ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t , followed by five years of supervised relea se

,

a n d $ 6

, 2 2 5

. 4 4 i n r e s t i t u t i o n

. A g u i b i is currently serving his se ntence a t F e d e r a l

C o rr e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n

, A l l e n w o o d L o w ( “ F C I A l l e n w o o d L o w ” )

. H i s a n t i c i p a t e d

r e l e a s e d a t e i s J u l y 2 6

, 2 0 2 8

.

In M a y 2020, A g u i b i filed a pro se motion f o r c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e b a s e d o n

“ e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s ” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)( A)( i). 1 I n t h e

m o t i o n

, A g u i b i a s s e r t e d t h a t

, d u e t o n u m e r o u s u n d e r l y i n g h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n s

— i n c l u d i n g

l a t e n t tu b e r c u l o s i s a n d a h e a r t m u r m u r

— h e w a s at risk of serious c ompli cations or death

should he contract COVID

- 1 9

. H e f u r t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t h e w a s u n a b l e t o p r a c t i c e

1 It is undisputed that Aguibi com plied with § 3582(c)(1)(A) ’ s thi rty

- day la p se provision

by filin g a request for c ompassionate release with h is warden bef ore turning to the

Distri ct Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (providing that a prisoner ca n file a

motion with the court upon the “lapse of 30 days from the recei pt of [a r e quest for

compassiona te release] by th e warden of the defendant’s facility.”).3 e f f

e c t i v e s o c i a l d i s t a n c i n g a n d h y g i e n e a t the p r i s o n i n o r d e r t o k e e p h i m s e l f s a f e

. W i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s

, A g u i b i a s s e r t e d t h a t “ t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t

t h e d e f e n d a n t p o s e s a d a n g e r

, b e i n g a f i r s t [

- ] t i m e o f f

e n d e r

, ” M o t

. 7

, E C F N o

. 1 1 4

, a n d

t h a t h e h a d t a k e n s i g n i f i c a n t s t e p s t o w a r d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n b y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n e d u c a t i o n a l

a n d j o b

- r e a d i n e s s p r o g r a m s

. B a s e d o n t h e s e r e a s o n s

, h e a s k e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o

m o d i f y h i s s e n t e n c e t o “ t i m e

- s e r v e d a n d o r t i m e s e r v e d w i t h t h e remainder o f h i s

s e n t e n c e o n s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e with a c o n d i t i o n o f h o m e c o n f i n e m e n t a n d o r d e r

i m m e d i a t e r e l e a s e

. ” 2 M o t

. 8

, E C F N o

. 1 1 4

.

The District Co ur t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

, concluding t h a t

, a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e

p a r t i e s ’ a r g u m e n t s a n d t h e 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a) factors

, a r e d u c t i o n i n A g u i b i ’ s t e r m o f

i m p r i s o n m e n t w a s n o t w a r r a n t e d

.

A g u i b i appeal e d

. T he Go vernment n o w m o v e s f o r s u m m a ry a f f

i r m a n c e

. S e e 3 d

C i r

. L

. A

. R

. 2 7

. 4

.

2 To the exten t t hat Aguibi requested a transition to home confinement

, the B ureau of

Prisons has th e sole authority to place a prison er in home confi nement

. S ee Tapia v.

United States , 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011) (“When a court sentences a federal offende r, the

BOP has p lenary co ntrol, subject to statutory constraints, over the place of the prisoner ’ s

imp risonment and the treatment progra ms (if any) in which he ma y partici pate.” (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted) ; see a lso United States v. Ala m , 960 F.3d 831, 836

(6th Cir. 2020) ( e xplaining that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securi ty

(CARES ) A ct , § 1 203(b)(2) , expa nds the power of the Burea u of Pris ons to place a

prisoner in home confi nement as an alternative to compassionate releas e )

.4 I I

.

W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We r e view the Dis trict C ourt’ s

ruling on a motion for compassionate release under 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for

a buse of discretion. See United States v. Pawlowski , 967 F.3d 327, 33 0 ( 3d Cir. 2020).

We may summarily affirm if “no substantial questio n is p r esented” by the app eal. 3d Cir.

L.A.R. 27.4.

The compassionat e

- release provision states that a district court “may reduce [a

federal inmate’s] term of imprisonment” a nd “impose a ter m of probation or super vised

release” if it finds that “extraordin ary an d compelling reasons warr ant such a reduction.”

18 U.S.C. § 35 82(c)(1)(A)(i). Before granting compassionate r e lease, a district court

must consider the factors set fo rth in 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a) “to the exte nt that they are

app licable.” Id. § 3582(c )(1) (A ) . Those fac tors in clude “the nature and circumstances of

the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1), and the

need for the sentence “to reflect th e seriousness of the o f fense, to promote respect fo r the

law, and to provide just pu n ishment for the offense”; “to afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct” ; “to protect the public from further crimes of the d efendant ” ; a n d “ t o

p r o v i d e t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h n e e d e d e d u c a t i o n a l o r v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g

, m e d i c a l c a r e

, o r

o t h e r c o r r e c t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t i n t h e m o s t e f f

e c t i v e m a n n e r

, ” § 3553(a)(2)(A)

– ( D ).5 I I I

.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the part ie s ’ filings, we discern no abuse

of dis cretion i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y t h e m o t i o n f o r co mpassionate

rele ase

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t

, i n l i g h t o f t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

A g u i b i ’ s o f f

e n s e s

, s e v e r a l o f t h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s

— i n c l u d i n g p r o m o t i n g r e s p e c t f o r t h e

l a w

, p r o v i d i n g j u s t p u n i s h m e n t f o r t h e o f f

e n s e s

, a n d p r o t e c t i n g t h e p u b l i c f r o m f u tu r e

c r i m e s

— c o u n s e l e d a g a i n s t c o m p a s s i o n a t e r e l e a s e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o r e a s o n a b l y

d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t A g u i b i h a d s e r v e d l e s s t h a n h a l f o f h i s 1 8 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e

w e i g h e d a g a i n s t h i m

. S e e P a w l o w s k i

, 9 6 7 F

. 3 d a t 3 3 1 ( “ [ W ] e cannot conclude that the

District Cour t a cted unrea sonably in determin ing that the substantial sentencing reduction

required for granting compassionate release here

— a redu ction from 15 years to less than

two y ears

— would be inconsist ent with the § 3553(a) factors ” )

. L a s t l y

, c ontrary t o

Aguibi ’ s conten tion, the District Court provided an explanation sufficient to show that he

meaningfully considered the § 3553(a) factors

. We theref ore do not have “a de finite and

firm conviction th at [the District Court] committed a clear error of judgment in th e

conclu sion it reached upon a weigh ing of the relevant factors.” Id. ( c i t a t i o n

, q u o t a t i o n

m a r k s

, a n d alteration omitted)

.

IV.

Accordingly, we g r a n t t h e G o v e rn m e n t ’ s m o t i o n a n d w ill s u m m a r i l y affirm the

District Court’s judgment.