United States v. Abdulqader ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 22, 2021
No. 20-10891 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891
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).
2
Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891
(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 COVID-
19. The district court denied this motion for reconsideration “for the reasons
3
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3
Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891
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)).
4
Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891
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).
5
Case: 20-10891 Document: 00516141943 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/22/2021
No. 20-10891
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.6