United States v. Al Haj ( 2021 )

Case: 21-10036 Document: 00515908543 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 22, 2021
No. 21-10036 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Khaled Al Haj,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-243-1
USDC No.4:20-CV-427
Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Khaled Al Haj, federal prisoner # 54760-177, seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for a compassionate
release reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 21-10036 Document: 00515908543 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
No. 21-10036
of his three motions for reconsideration of the denial of the motion for
compassionate release. In denying the motion for compassionate release, the
district court concluded that Al Haj had not established extraordinary and
compelling circumstances warranting release. When denying his first and
second motions for reconsideration, the court considered the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors and found that release was inappropriate.
We construe Al Haj’s IFP motion as a challenge to the district court’s
certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). To show a
nonfrivolous appellate issue, he must show that his appeal raises legal points
that are arguable on the merits. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983).
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release and motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). Because Al
Haj filed the motion for compassionate release, the district court’s decision
is “bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021).
Here, although the district court denied the motion because it found no
compelling or extraordinary reasons for a sentence reduction in light of the
factors set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, it also articulated later when denying
Al Haj’s first and second motions for reconsideration that the § 3553(a)
factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction, given the nature of the offense,
the need for deterrence, and the need for just punishment. We may affirm
on any basis supported in the record. United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219,
220 (5th Cir. 2014).
2
Case: 21-10036 Document: 00515908543 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/22/2021
No. 21-10036
We afford deference to the district court’s consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Al Haj’s mere disagreement
with the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground
for reversal.” Id. at 694. Additionally, Al Haj has shown no error in
connection with the adequacy of the district court’s written reasons for
denying the third motion for reconsideration and his motion to proceed IFP
on appeal. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.21.
Accordingly, Al Haj fails to demonstrate that his appeal involves any
arguably meritorious issues. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. We DENY his
motion to proceed IFP and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
3