United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10891

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Mufid Abdulqader, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-240-7

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Inmate Mufid Abdulqader appeals the district court’s denial of his 

motion for compassionate release. Because the district court did not abuse 

its discretion, we affirm.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891

2

I

Abdulqader is currently serving a term of twenty years’ imprisonment 

for (1) conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist 

organization, (2) conspiracy to provide funds, goods, and services to a 

specially designated terrorist, and (3) conspiracy to commit money 

laundering. The evidence reflected that Abdulqader materially aided Hamas 

by fundraising through the pro-Palestinian charity Holy Land Foundation for 

Relief and Development. He was convicted in 2008.1

In 2020, Abdulqader sought a sentence reduction in the district court 

under the compassionate release provision—18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)—

pursuant to which a court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if 

it finds that, after considering the factors set out in § 3553(a), “extraordinary 

and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” and the reduction “is 

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing 

Commission.” While the Sentencing Commission has yet to adopt a policy 

statement that governs defendant-initiated motions for compassionate 

release,2 § 3553(a) requires the court to consider, in relevant part:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 

and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote 

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for 

the offense;

1 United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 483 (5th Cir. 2011), as revised (Dec. 27,

2011).

2 See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891

3

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the 

defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational 

or vocational training, medical care, or other 

correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established 

for--

(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the 

applicable category of defendant as set forth in the 

[sentencing] guidelines.

3

Abdulqader argues that his medical history, rendering him especially 

susceptible to COVID-19, and the unavailability of other caretakers to tend 

to his ailing wife, establish the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” 

warranting a reduction in sentence or, alternatively, home confinement. He 

argues further that he has been rehabilitated and no longer poses any danger 

to the community. The district court originally denied Abdulqader’s motion 

because it found that Abdulqader failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies; he “[did] not present[] extraordinary and compelling reasons” to 

warrant reduction; and even if he had presented such reasons, Abdulqader 

failed to establish that he was not a danger to the safety of others or to the 

community or that the § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of reduction. 

Abdulqader then filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching declarations 

and records further supporting his rehabilitation, the unavailability of other 

caretakers to care for his wife, and his heightened susceptibility to COVID19. The district court denied this motion for reconsideration “for the reasons 

3

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891

4

stated in the court’s” original order denying compassionate release and 

because the newly attached declarations “d[id] not provide persuasive 

evidence of his wife’s incapacitation and inability to pay for an in-home care 

giver.” Abdulqader timely appealed. 

II

This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for 

compassionate release for an abuse of discretion.4 A district court abuses its 

discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence.5 “[W]e give deference to the district court’s 

decision and note that reversal is not justified where ‘the appellate court 

might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was 

appropriate.’”6

Abdulqader argues that the district court committed legal error on 

four main grounds—(1) it erroneously concluded that Abdulqader failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) it improperly applied a heightened 

standard required to establish “extraordinary and compelling” 

circumstances; (3) it crafted a de facto rule that would render Abdulqader 

ineligible for a reduction solely because the nature of the offense was 

terrorism-related; and (4) it ignored uncontroverted evidence concerning 

Abdulqader’s rehabilitation, his susceptibility to COVID-19, and the medical 

prognosis of his wife. The first three of these bases for reversal, however,

overlook the district court’s separate, discretionary determination that the 

§ 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction. Further, the record 

does not support the fourth basis—the district court denied Abdulqader’s 

4 United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

5

Id.

6

Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891

5

motion for reconsideration only after “considering the additional 

information presented.” The district court explicitly considered 

Abdulqader’s newly-filed records and affidavits.

The district court committed no reversible error when it denied 

Abdulqader’s request for compassionate release. The court was careful to 

consider the nature and circumstances of the offense—“providing financial 

support for terrorism”—along with the “kinds of sentence and the 

sentencing range established for . . . the applicable category of offense 

committed by the applicable category of defendant.”7 Moreover, after 

recounting the circumstances of Abdulqader’s offense in detail, the court 

expressed concern about potential future crimes, concluding that 

Abdulqader’s release would still pose a danger to the community. Further 

still, the court considered Abdulqader’s category VI criminal history and 

total offense level of 40, which created a guidelines range of 360 months to 

life. Despite this range, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of twenty 

years. In short, the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and 

concluded that they did not support a reduction; Abdulqader’s disagreement 

with how the court weighed those factors is an insufficient ground for 

reversal.

8 Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Abdulqader’s motion.

Alternatively, Abdulqader argues that the district court erred when it 

denied his request to serve out the remainder of his sentence in home 

confinement. This court cannot directly order Abdulqader to serve out the 

remainder of his term in home confinement.9 Assuming, arguendo, that this 

7 § 3553(a)(4).

8 See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

9 United States v. Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 388 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995).

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891

6

court may indirectly impose a home-confinement condition of supervised 

release after it has determined that a reduction in sentence is appropriate,

10

the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining this request. The 

district court could only have ordered home confinement as a condition of 

supervised release after it determined a sentence reduction was appropriate.11 

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to 

reduce Abdulqader’s sentence, so too did it not abuse its discretion by 

declining to order home confinement. 

* * *

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

10 See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (allowing the court to “reduce the term of 

imprisonment” or “impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without 

conditions”).

11 See id. 

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/22/2021