United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-20313

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Mohammad Khan, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-64-1 

______________________________

Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mohammad Khan, federal prisoner # 07174-379, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for sentence 

reduction. He argues the district court clearly erred in finding no 

extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranted compassionate 

release because he suffered serious medical complications during his 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313

2

hospitalization for a COVID-19 infection; he continues to suffer from 

breathing and digestive system problems that prison healthcare providers 

have not properly treated; and his age and chronic health conditions, 

including diabetes and hypertension, pose a high risk that reinfection will 

result in severe illness or death. He also argues the district court erred in 

finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting 

compassionate release.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding Khan did not 

establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate 

release. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2021). The 

court considered Khan’s medical conditions and the complications he 

suffered during his hospitalization and determined they did not present 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting his motion, when 

considered in combination with the fact that he had served only 25 percent of 

his 40-year sentence. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-35 

(5th Cir. 2021). The district court’s determination is supported by the record 

and was not based on “an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of 

the evidence.” Ward, 11 F.3d at 359 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

Nor has Khan shown that the district court abused its discretion in 

finding the § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting his motion. We give a 

high level of deference to the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) 

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

The district court permissibly gave greater weight to the seriousness of 

Khan’s criminal conduct, the amount of time remaining on his sentence, and 

the need for just punishment than to his medical issues and his good 

disciplinary record. See id. at 693-94. Khan’s disagreement with the district 

court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse 

Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313

3

of discretion and “is not sufficient ground for reversal.” See id. at 694; see 

also United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022).

In his reply brief, Khan argues the district court based its decision on 

clearly erroneous information and did not consider his argument that he 

should not have been held responsible for the entire loss amount. To the 

extent that he is challenging the district court’s initial sentencing 

determinations, he may not do so in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. See United 

States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

motion).

In addition, Khan has not shown that the district court erred in failing 

to consider whether he should be granted a sentence reduction, rather than 

immediate release. Any error was harmless as this court routinely affirms the 

denial of a compassionate release motion “where the district court’s 

weighing of the [§] 3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.” 

United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); see also 

Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62. 

Khan also argues the district court erroneously failed to consider 

whether he had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances before 

analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. Even if § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) contained such a 

requirement (it does not), any error was harmless. See Jackson, 27 F.4th at 

1093 n.8; Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62.

Lastly, Khan argues the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction 

violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual 

punishment. We need not consider this claim because he did not raise it in 

the district court, see Martinez v. Pompeo, 977 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2020), 

and because the district court properly disposed of Khan’s motion for 

compassionate release after considering the § 3553(a) factors. See Chambliss, 

948 F.3d at 692-93.

Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313

4

We do not address the Government’s argument, raised for the first 

time on appeal, that Khan was not eligible for compassionate release because 

he has been vaccinated. See Thompson, 984 F.3d at 432 n.1.

AFFIRMED.

 

Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2023