Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jamal Abu SAMAK, Defendant—Appellant.
Jamal Abu Samak, federal prisoner # 21826-034, appeals from the denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to his ill health, the COVID-19 pandemic, and his own COVID-19 illness.
On the motion of either the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a prisoner, § 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a sentencing court to reduce the prisoner's term of imprisonment after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if, inter alia, the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to deny compassionate release despite a prisoner's eligibility. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
In denying Samak's motion, the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors, specifically citing the nature of Samak's offense conduct, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. Samak has failed to show that the district court's decision was based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. Although, as in Chambliss, Samak may disagree with how the district balanced the § 3553(a) factors, his disagreement provides an insufficient ground for reversal. See id. at 694.
Because Samak has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion after weighing the § 3553(a) factors, we affirm the decision of the district court. His motion for compassionate release is therefore denied.
FOOTNOTES
Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-30483
Decided: December 28, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)