UNITED STATES v. FLEIFEL (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-06-04No. No. 20-10681

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's order denying the compassionate release motion was affirmed because the appellate court lacks authority to decide such motions in the first instance, and Fleifel failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in finding an absence of extraordinary and compelling reasons for his immediate release.

Fleifel, a federal inmate, appealed the district court's rejection of his request for sentence reduction on compassionate grounds under federal law. He contended that his health issues and other circumstances under the sentencing factors warranted release or time-served credit. The appellate court declined to hear his compassionate release motion directly, finding that such motions must be filed first in the sentencing court, not pursued on appeal as an initial matter.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an appellate court may grant compassionate release where the motion was initially denied by the district court
Whether the inmate demonstrated an extraordinary and compelling reason for sentence reduction
Proper venue for compassionate release motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release, seeking sentence reduction based on health conditions and sentencing factors.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Fabian C. Fleifel, federal prisoner # 57575-018, has appealed the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argues that the district court should have reduced his sentence to time served in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and his health conditions. To the extent he has moved this court for compassionate release, the motion is DENIED because we cannot decide such a motion in the first instance as, in context, § 3582 directs the filing of such motions in the sentencing court. See § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 821, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

We pretermit the question whether the district court erred in determining that Fleifel failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467-68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 920, 208 L.Ed.2d 466 (2020). To the extent that Fleifel relies on documents or facts that were not before the district court, we will not consider them. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).

Fleifel has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he did not have an extraordinary and compelling reason for his immediate release. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021). The district courts order is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

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.