United States v. Jihad Garrett

ALD-206 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 22-2129
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JIHAD GARRETT,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-18-cr-00125-001)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
____________________________________
Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 28, 2022
Before: JORDAN, RESTREPO and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 10, 2022)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Federal prisoner Jihad Garrett appeals from an order of the District Court denying
his motions for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The
Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the following reasons, we
grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
In 2019, Garrett was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of (1) possession of a firearm
by a convicted felon, (2) possession with intent to distribute heroin, and (3) carrying a
firearm during a drug trafficking crime. He was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of
110 months. According to the Bureau of Prisons, Garrett has a release date of June 7,
2026.
As relevant to this appeal, Garrett filed a pro se motion for compassionate release
on April 4, 2022, contending that his health conditions—obesity, hypertension, and
irregular heartbeat—and his long-term symptoms from contracting COVID-19 made him
susceptible to further complications if he contracted the virus again. The District Court
denied Garrett’s motion, finding that his health conditions did not present an
extraordinary circumstance and that, in any event, the weighing of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors precluded his release. Garrett appealed. Because the appeal presents
no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 (2011); 3d
Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2018).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District
Court’s denial of compassionate release, including its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors,
for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Andrews, 12 F.4th 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2021);
2
United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). Under that standard, “we
will not disturb the court’s determination unless we are left with a definite and firm
conviction that it committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.”
Andrews, 12 F.4th at 259 (quotation marks and alteration omitted).
We need not review the District Court’s conclusions as to whether Garrett showed
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, because the conclusion that release is
not warranted upon review of the § 3553(a) factors is sufficient to support the District
Court’s rulings in this case. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1238-39 (11th
Cir. 2021) (per curiam). In weighing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the District Court
noted that Garrett had served only about 50 months of his 110-month sentence and
concluded that releasing him would diminish the seriousness of his offenses and fail to
promote respect for the law. See Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330-31. These were relevant
considerations, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), and we cannot say that the District Court
erred in relying on them. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020)
(holding that court did not err in denying compassionate release where defendant had
served 14 years of his 30-year sentence for drug trafficking offenses). Contrary to
Garrett’s contention on appeal, the Government was not required to raise its arguments in
favor of summary action first in the District Court. We will therefore affirm the District
Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
3