Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20313
FILED
April 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Mohammad Khan,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-64-1
______________________________
Before Clement, Graves, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Mohammad Khan, federal prisoner # 07174-379, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for sentence
reduction. He argues the district court clearly erred in finding no
extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranted compassionate
release because he suffered serious medical complications during his
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313
hospitalization for a COVID-19 infection; he continues to suffer from
breathing and digestive system problems that prison healthcare providers
have not properly treated; and his age and chronic health conditions,
including diabetes and hypertension, pose a high risk that reinfection will
result in severe illness or death. He also argues the district court erred in
finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting
compassionate release.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding Khan did not
establish extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate
release. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2021). The
court considered Khan’s medical conditions and the complications he
suffered during his hospitalization and determined they did not present
extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting his motion, when
considered in combination with the fact that he had served only 25 percent of
his 40-year sentence. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-35
(5th Cir. 2021). The district court’s determination is supported by the record
and was not based on “an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of
the evidence.” Ward, 11 F.3d at 359 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Nor has Khan shown that the district court abused its discretion in
finding the § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting his motion. We give a
high level of deference to the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a)
factors. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court permissibly gave greater weight to the seriousness of
Khan’s criminal conduct, the amount of time remaining on his sentence, and
the need for just punishment than to his medical issues and his good
disciplinary record. See id. at 693-94. Khan’s disagreement with the district
court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse
2
Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313
of discretion and “is not sufficient ground for reversal.” See id. at 694; see
also United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022).
In his reply brief, Khan argues the district court based its decision on
clearly erroneous information and did not consider his argument that he
should not have been held responsible for the entire loss amount. To the
extent that he is challenging the district court’s initial sentencing
determinations, he may not do so in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. See United
States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011) (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion).
In addition, Khan has not shown that the district court erred in failing
to consider whether he should be granted a sentence reduction, rather than
immediate release. Any error was harmless as this court routinely affirms the
denial of a compassionate release motion “where the district court’s
weighing of the [§] 3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.”
United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); see also
Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62.
Khan also argues the district court erroneously failed to consider
whether he had shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances before
analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. Even if § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) contained such a
requirement (it does not), any error was harmless. See Jackson, 27 F.4th at
1093 n.8; Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62.
Lastly, Khan argues the district court’s denial of a sentence reduction
violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishment. We need not consider this claim because he did not raise it in
the district court, see Martinez v. Pompeo, 977 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2020),
and because the district court properly disposed of Khan’s motion for
compassionate release after considering the § 3553(a) factors. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 692-93.
3
Case: 22-20313 Document: 00516703813 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2023
No. 22-20313
We do not address the Government’s argument, raised for the first
time on appeal, that Khan was not eligible for compassionate release because
he has been vaccinated. See Thompson, 984 F.3d at 432 n.1.
AFFIRMED.
4