Court Opinion

ID: 9370558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 01:00:25.27099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.229202
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10425        Document: 00516644714             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/13/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10425
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                              February 13, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Fabian C. Fleifel,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:12-CR-318-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Fabian C. Fleifel, federal prisoner # 57575-018, has appealed the
   district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release, pursuant
   to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), in which he contended that a sentence reduction was
   warranted because the district court had erred at sentencing in determining
   the amount of the loss. The district court determined that Fleifel had not

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10425      Document: 00516644714           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                     No. 22-10425

   shown that there were extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence
   reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court also found that a
   reduction was not warranted in light of statutory sentencing factors. See 18
   U.S.C. § 3553(a). It construed Fleifel’s attempt to challenge the legality of
   his underlying sentence as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255
   motion, which it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It denied a certificate of
   appealability (COA) from that portion of its decision.
          The procedural posture of this case requires Fleifel to obtain a COA.
   Although Fleifel did not move for a COA in this court, his notice of appeal is
   construed as a COA request. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). This requires
   him to show that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s decision to
   deny relief debatable or wrong, Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000),
   or “that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve
   encouragement to proceed further,” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
   (2003).
          On the motion of either the director of the Bureau of Prisons or the
   defendant, a court may reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment, after
   considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if, inter alia, the court
   finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”
   and “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements
   issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A district
   court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion for compassionate release is
   reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691,
   693 (5th Cir. 2020). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on
   an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id.
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Fleifel insists that his motion was filed under § 3582(c), not § 2255;
   and he complains that the district court failed to consider whether it had

                                          2
Case: 22-10425      Document: 00516644714            Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                      No. 22-10425

   erred in determining the amount of the loss and whether its error constituted
   an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting a sentence
   reduction. He asserts that the Government “cannot prove” the amount of
   the loss, and he complains that he has not had an opportunity to litigate that
   question.
          The district court was not obligated to treat Fleifel’s pleading as a
   § 3582(c) motion simply because Fleifel so labeled it. See United States v.
   Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 n.1 (5th Cir. 1983). Section 2255 “is the primary
   means of collaterally attacking a federal sentence.” Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d
   876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district
   court’s treatment of Fleifel’s motion for compassionate release as an
   unauthorized successive § 2255 motion to the extent that it challenged the
   legality of the sentence. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484; see also Santora, 711 F.2d
   at 42 n.1; Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877.
          With respect to the motion for compassionate release, Fleifel
   contends that the district court erred in considering itself bound by the
   guidelines policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s. The district court stated
   expressly that it did not consider itself bound by the policy statement.
   Motions for compassionate release are inherently discretionary. See Ward v.
   United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021). Fleifel had the burden to
   convince the district court to exercise its discretion. See id. at 360–61. The
   district court properly explained why relief was not merited in light of its
   application of the sentencing factors. See id. at 360–61. Fleifel’s conclusional
   arguments do not show that the district court abused its discretion. See
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
          Fleifel contends that the district court judge is unfairly biased and has
   failed to comply with his professional responsibilities. A judge’s adverse
   rulings, without more, are insufficient to show judicial bias unless they reveal

                                           3
Case: 22-10425      Document: 00516644714             Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/13/2023

                                       No. 22-10425

   an opinion based on an extrajudicial source or demonstrate such a high degree
   of antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. See Liteky v. United
   States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).            No such opinion or antagonism is
   discernible in this case. See id.
          To the extent a COA is required, a COA is DENIED. Because the
   remainder of the appeal is FRIVOLOUS, it is DISMISSED IN PART.
   See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
          We WARN Fleifel that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise
   abusive pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction
   may result in the imposition of SANCTIONS, including dismissal,
   monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this
   court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

                                            4