20-3461-cr
2d Cir.Dec 7, 2021Background
- Samuel Israel III pled guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to commit investment-adviser and mail fraud, investment-adviser fraud, and mail fraud.
- The district court imposed 240 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release; Israel failed to surrender, pled guilty to that failure, and received an additional consecutive two-year term (total 22 years).
- Israel has served ~12 years; projected release date May 10, 2027. Prior direct appeal and §2255 relief were denied.
- He moved for compassionate release under the First Step Act after testing positive for COVID-19 and asserting serious underlying medical conditions; the district court denied relief for (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies and (2) unfavorable §3553(a) sentencing-factor analysis.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, assuming arguendo exhaustion and extraordinary-and-compelling reasons but holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying release based on the §3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) | Israel says he exhausted BOP remedies or that failure should be excused | BOP/Govt. says Israel did not present the COVID-19 contracting claim to the Bureau first | Court did not resolve exhaustion; assumed arguendo exhausted but affirmed denial on other grounds |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release after considering §3553(a) | Israel argued denial was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; his positive COVID test and conditions are extraordinary and compelling | District court and Government argued the seriousness of Israel’s massive fraud, need for just punishment, deterrence, and public respect for law weigh heavily against reducing sentence by ~7 years | Affirmed: district court did not abuse its discretion; even assuming extraordinary reasons, §3553(a) factors counseled against release |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120 (2d Cir. 2021) (reviews denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion; de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371 (2d Cir. 2021) (holds extraordinary and compelling reasons are necessary but not sufficient; courts must consider §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Israel, [citation="331 F. App'x 864"] (2d Cir. 2009) (affirmed Israel’s original sentence)