Court Opinion

ID: 9385507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 00:00:28.821867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.458188
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20313        Document: 00516703813             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                      No. 22-20313
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                              April 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
   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.
Case: 22-20313      Document: 00516703813           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                     No. 22-20313

   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

                                              2
Case: 22-20313      Document: 00516703813           Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                     No. 22-20313

   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.

                                              3
Case: 22-20313     Document: 00516703813          Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                   No. 22-20313

         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.

                                            4