United States v. Al Kassar
20-2825-cr
| 2d Cir. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Monzer Al Kassar, serving a 30-year federal sentence, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for compassionate release based on age and chronic health conditions (including diabetes) and COVID-19 risk.
- District Court initially denied relief because COVID-19 risk at USP Marion was minimal at that time.
- Al Kassar renewed his motion after alleged deterioration in prison conditions; the District Court found his medical risks to be “extraordinary and compelling” but denied release after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- The District Court emphasized the egregious nature of his offenses, the leniency of his sentence, and that he had served 13 of 30 years; it concluded the § 3553(a) factors outweighed compassionate-release grounds.
- Al Kassar appealed the denial; the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the District Court’s discretionary balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Al Kassar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release after finding extraordinary and compelling reasons | Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and reasonably concluded they weighed against release | Medical risks from COVID-19 and chronic conditions justify release despite § 3553(a) considerations | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; District Court’s balancing was within permissible range |
| Whether the District Court improperly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 rather than § 3553(a) | District Court did not rely on the policy statement but applied § 3553(a) factors | Brooker requires that § 1B1.13 not be treated as exclusive; court erred if it relied on it | No error — court weighed § 3553(a) factors, so Brooker-based challenge fails |
| Whether the District Court improperly credited Government-provided medical information | Government’s submissions were properly considered; court conceded extraordinary medical circumstances but still balanced factors | Court gave undue weight to Government’s account of his medical treatment, undermining his claim | No abuse — court assumed extraordinary and compelling circumstances yet found § 3553(a) factors outweighed release |
| Whether the court failed to account for sentencing disparities (e.g., Bout) | Sentencing disparity is relevant but its weight is discretionary for the sentencing court | Sentence is disparate from similarly situated defendants and should favor release | No abuse — disparity is relevant but not controlling; District Court acted within discretion |
| Whether a new claim that the Government breached obligations to Spain may be raised on appeal | Claim is forfeited; appellate courts generally will not consider issues raised first on appeal | Government breached treaty/transfer obligations, making sentence invalid | Not considered (forfeited); alternatively, sentence complied with the agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holloway, 956 F.3d 660 (2d Cir. 2020) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for discretionary sentence reductions)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to district judges when sentence reflects reasoned discretion)
- United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (compassionate-release analysis not strictly bound by Sentencing Commission policy statement)
- United States v. Borden, 564 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2009) (appellate review limits: decisions within permissible range affirmed)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (no presumption of failure of consideration when district court does not enumerate each § 3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013) (context for comparing sentences of similarly situated defendants)
- United States v. Messina, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (sentencing disparity is relevant but not controlling)
- United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight accorded sentencing factors is within sentencing judge’s discretion)
- Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577 (2d Cir. 1994) (appellate courts ordinarily will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal)