United States v. Shabazz
Criminal No. 2017-0043
| D.D.C. | Sep 22, 2021Background:
- Defendant Rahman Shabazz, 55, is serving a 67‑month sentence for racketeering and conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine; he had served about 46 months and, with good‑time credit, faced ~12 months remaining (release Sept. 2022).
- On Sept. 10, 2020 Shabazz moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), arguing he needed to be released to provide round‑the‑clock care for his 80‑year‑old mother, Irene Hunt, who suffers dementia, gait instability, hypertension, partial deafness, and has burned herself while cooking.
- The district court denied the motion in Nov. 2020; the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded in light of United States v. Long (holding U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding on defendant‑filed motions) and directed reconsideration.
- On remand the court received supplemental briefing: Shabazz contended he is the only person who can provide needed consistent in‑home care; the government argued others (his sister and neighbors) and other alternatives exist and that release is unnecessary and poses risks.
- The court found Shabazz failed to show he is the only available caregiver or that his mother cannot be cared for by other means (including intermittent caregiver visits or relocation), and found the circumstances not sufficiently "extraordinary and compelling."
- The court also concluded the § 3553(a) factors weigh against release given the seriousness of the offenses, Shabazz’s criminal history and disciplinary record, and a risk of recidivism; it denied the compassionate‑release motion (and the alternative request for home confinement).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether need to care for an ailing parent constitutes an "extraordinary and compelling reason" under § 3582(c) | Gov't: family alternatives exist; parent not neglected; caring needs do not meet the very high "extraordinary and compelling" threshold | Shabazz: mother’s dementia, falls, and burns require constant, in‑home care only he can provide | Denied — court credits mother’s condition but finds Shabazz not the only available caregiver and the situation not sufficiently "extraordinary and compelling" |
| Applicability of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 after Long | Gov't: policy statement remains persuasive guidance | Shabazz: § 1B1.13 is not binding and he need not prove he is sole caregiver | Court: follows Long — § 1B1.13 not binding but remains persuasive; court relied on it as guidance |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors support release (danger to community, punishment, deterrence) | Gov't: Shabazz’s criminal history, probation violation, and in‑custody misconduct show danger/recidivism; thus factors weigh against release | Shabazz: nonviolent offense, some compliance while on release, largely clean disciplinary record during current term | Held: § 3553(a) factors weigh against release — offenses serious, prior recidivism, in‑custody misconduct, and limited evidence of rehabilitation |
| Whether home confinement is a permissible alternative | Gov't: not appropriate absent sentence reduction and extraordinary reason | Shabazz: requests release or, alternatively, modification to permit home confinement | Denied — court cannot order home confinement without first finding an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce sentence, which was not found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (held U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding on defendant‑initiated compassionate release motions)
- United States v. Shabazz, 502 F. Supp. 3d 194 (D.D.C. 2020) (district court’s prior denial of Shabazz’s compassionate release motion)
- United States v. Johnson, 464 F. Supp. 3d 22 (D.D.C. 2020) (explains the two‑step compassionate release inquiry: extraordinary/compelling reasons and § 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Bucci, 409 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D. Mass. 2019) (granting compassionate release where defendant was the only available caregiver for an incapacitated parent)
- United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting compassionate‑release decisions are fact‑intensive and reviewing district‑court analyses)