United States v. Jamal Samak
707 F. App'x 835
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Defendant Jamal Abu Samak, a federal prisoner, appealed denial of a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) after the Sentencing Commission made Amendment 591 retroactive.
- Abu Samak was originally sentenced to life for arson resulting in death (18 U.S.C. § 844(i) with aiding and abetting) and a concurrent five-year term for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).
- At initial sentencing the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2K1.4 (the guideline listed in the 1991 Statutory Index for § 844(i)).
- Amendment 591 requires selecting the Chapter Two guideline in the Statutory Index that is most appropriate for the offense of conviction based on the conduct in the count of conviction (not relevant conduct), and directs consideration of § 2X1.1 for conspiracies.
- The district court denied a reduction because Amendment 591 did not lower Abu Samak’s guideline range; Abu Samak challenged that determination on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amendment 591 requires a different guideline than § 2K1.4 for § 844(i) conviction | Abu Samak: Another guideline in the Statutory Index (e.g., tied to § 34) was more appropriate and would lower his range | Government: District court properly applied § 2K1.4 because it was the appropriate guideline for the arson conviction | Court: Affirmed — Abu Samak failed to show any alternate listed guideline was more appropriate |
| Whether the court may consider relevant conduct when applying § 2K1.4(c) cross-reference | Abu Samak: District court should not have considered relevant conduct for the cross-reference | Government: Relevant conduct may be considered; the arson count expressly alleged death resulted, so cross-reference was based on the conviction element | Court: Affirmed — relevant conduct applies; here death was found by jury so cross-reference application was proper |
| Whether Amendment 591 changed treatment of cross-references or limited relevant-conduct analysis | Abu Samak: Amendment 591 altered or barred relevant-conduct consideration for cross-references | Government: Amendment 591 did not change existing § 1B1.3(a) requirement to use relevant conduct unless specified | Court: Affirmed — Amendment 591 did not alter relevant-conduct rules and did not affect this cross-reference |
| Whether statutory maximum or other guideline decisions (e.g., departures) affect retroactivity analysis under § 3582(c)(2) | Abu Samak: Statutory maximum or departure errors mean Amendment 591 should lower his sentence | Government: Amendment 591 focuses on offense conduct/guideline selection; statutory maximum/departure issues are separate and not altered by retroactivity analysis | Court: Affirmed — statutory-penalty and departure decisions are separate; they don’t make Amendment 591 retroactively lower the guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abu Samak, 7 F.3d 1196 (5th Cir.) (original appeal and sentencing history)
- United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for § 3582(c)(2) determinations)
- United States v. El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1993) (choosing most appropriate guideline based on count of conviction)
- United States v. Gonzales, 996 F.2d 88 (5th Cir. 1993) (§ 1B1.3(a) requires use of relevant conduct for cross-references)
- United States v. Ross, [citation="37 F. App'x 714"] (5th Cir. 2002) (Amendment 591 does not affect cross-references like § 2K1.4(c))
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (district-court guideline decisions beyond the mechanical retroactivity inquiry remain unaffected)
- United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2009) (limits of § 3582(c)(2) proceedings regarding challenges like Apprendi)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (noted for relevance to sentencing factfinding limits)