United States v. Al Haj
21-10036
| 5th Cir. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Khaled Al Haj, a federal inmate, moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); the district court denied the motion for lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13).
- He filed three motions for reconsideration; the first two denials expressly weighed the § 3553(a) factors (nature of offense, deterrence, just punishment) and found release inappropriate.
- Al Haj appealed the denials and sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal; the district court had certified the appeal was not taken in good faith.
- The Fifth Circuit construed the IFP motion as a challenge to that certification (28 U.S.C. § 1915) and reviewed whether the appeal raised any nonfrivolous issue.
- Standard of review applied: abuse of discretion for denial of compassionate release and reconsideration; a district court deciding a defendant-filed § 3582 motion is bound by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and must consider § 3553(a) factors.
- The Fifth Circuit deferred to the district court’s § 3553(a) balancing, found no reversible error in the denials or in the court’s written reasons, denied IFP, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Al Haj) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying compassionate release for lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons | The record lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release | Al Haj claimed extraordinary and compelling reasons justified a sentence reduction | Denial affirmed: court found no extraordinary and compelling reasons shown |
| Whether the district court improperly applied or failed to adequately consider the § 3553(a) factors on reconsideration | The district court properly considered and balanced § 3553(a) factors (nature of offense, deterrence, punishment) | Al Haj contended the § 3553(a) balancing and written reasons were inadequate | Denial affirmed: Fifth Circuit deferred to district court; mere disagreement with balancing is insufficient |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous and IFP should be granted | The appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith | Al Haj argued his appeal presented nonfrivolous, arguable legal issues | IFP denied and appeal dismissed as frivolous; no arguably meritorious issues shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for certifying appeals not taken in good faith and IFP issues)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (nonfrivolous appeal requires arguable legal points on the merits)
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (abuse-of-discretion review and deference to district court § 3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reconsideration rulings)
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (limits on district court when defendant files § 3582 motion; must consider § 3553(a))
- United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2014) (appellate courts may affirm on any basis supported by the record)