United States v. Surtain
25-30091
5th Cir.Jun 9, 2025Background
- Jermaine Surtain, a federal prisoner, moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
- The district court denied Surtain’s motion, finding he did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances for release.
- Surtain claimed the court should have considered his rehabilitation efforts and other relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- He appealed, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying relief.
- The appeal was decided without oral argument and was not selected for publication.
Issues
| Issue | Surtain's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying compassionate release | District court failed to find extraordinary/compelling reasons and did not weigh rehabilitation or all § 3553(a) factors | Court did weigh offense nature, sentence purpose, deterrence, and public protection; Surtain had not shown an abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether court properly considered all relevant § 3553(a) factors | Court did not adequately consider post-rehabilitation and other factors | Court assumed district court considered these arguments | Court's balancing not reversible |
| Whether Surtain presented a nonfrivolous argument for appeal | He had raised meritorious issues | Arguments were disagreements with balancing of factors, not legal error | No nonfrivolous issues; appeal dismissed as frivolous |
| Whether IFP status should be granted | Should be allowed to proceed without payment | Appeal is frivolous so IFP should be denied | IFP denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (district courts have discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors and extraordinary circumstances in compassionate release motions)
- United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2020) (assumes district court considered defendant’s arguments even when not explicitly addressed)
- Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standards for dismissing appeals as frivolous)
- Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (criteria for determining frivolous IFP appeals)