23-6308 United States v. Siraj

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT:

GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v. No. 23-6308

SHAHAWAR MATIN SIRAJ,

Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: MUDASSAR HAYAT TOPPA (Naz Ahmad, Arpita Vora, Local Rule 46.1(e) Law Student, Alexis Donovan, Local Rule 46.1(e) Law Student, on the brief), CLEAR Clinic, Main Street Legal Services, Inc., CUNY School of Law, Long Island City, NY.

For Appellee: NINA C. GUPTA (David C. James, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of New York (Nina Gershon, Judge) denying Appellant’s motion for

compassionate release.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 20, 2023 order of the district court

is AFFIRMED.

Shahawar Matin Siraj, a federal inmate serving a 360-month sentence for

terrorism-related offenses, appeals from an order of the district court denying his

motion for compassionate release under

(c)(1)(A). We assume the

parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on

appeal.

2 In May 2006, Siraj was convicted after a jury trial on charges arising from

his participation in a plot to bomb the 34th Street-Herald Square subway station

in Manhattan in retaliation for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

Specifically, the jury determined that Siraj conspired to: (1) maliciously damage

or destroy property by means of an explosive, in violation of

(i) and

(n); (2) wreck, derail, or disable a mass transportation vehicle, in violation of

(a)(1) and (a)(8); (3) place a destructive device in, upon, or near a

facility used in the operation of a public transportation vehicle, in violation of

(a)(3) and (a)(8); and (4) unlawfully deliver, place, discharge, or

detonate an explosive device in a public transportation system, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2332f(a)(2) and (a)(1)(B). The district court sentenced Siraj to 360 months’

imprisonment – at the bottom of the advisory sentencing guidelines range of 360

months’ to life imprisonment – to be followed by a life term of supervised release.

In October 2022, after serving just over half of his sentence, Siraj moved for

compassionate release under section 3582(c)(1)(A), which authorizes a district

court to grant a sentence reduction when a defendant makes a showing of

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” and demonstrates that “the factors set

forth in section 3553(a)” merit a reduction.

(c)(1)(A). Because

3 both extraordinary and compelling circumstances and a favorable assessment of

the section 3553(a) factors are required, a district court may deny relief on either

ground. See United States v. Halvon,

(2d Cir. 2022).

In his motion, Siraj argued that several factors – including his youthful

vulnerability to extremism at the time of the offenses, the aggressive surveillance

practices of law enforcement during the investigation, the purported disparities

between his sentence and those of similarly situated defendants, his rehabilitation

while in prison, and the harsh conditions of confinement he experienced in prison

– were sufficiently extraordinary and compelling to warrant a sentence reduction.

The district court denied the motion, determining that none of the circumstances

raised by Siraj constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying

relief. In light of that finding, the district court did not reach whether the section

3553(a) factors warranted a reduction. This appeal followed.

We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Keitt,

(2d Cir. 2021). A district court

abuses its discretion when it “(1) base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law,

(2) ma[kes] a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or (3) render[s] a

decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” United

4 States v. Saladino,

(2d Cir. 2021) (emphasis and internal quotation

marks omitted).

Although Siraj concedes that the district court considered each of the

purportedly “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that he proffered in his

motion, he contends that the court failed to assess whether those reasons

“cumulatively” met the extraordinary and compelling standard required for such

relief. Siraj Br. at 23. We disagree.

As an initial matter, Siraj mischaracterizes the district court’s description of

the legal standards governing his motion. Quoting our decision in United States

v. Brooker,

(2d Cir. 2020), which held that district courts are “free[] . . .

to consider the full slate of extraordinary and compelling reasons that an

imprisoned person might bring before them in motions for compassionate

release,”

, the district court acknowledged “that these [reasons] can be

evaluated in ‘isolation or combination,’” Sp. App’x at 4 (emphasis added) (quoting

Brooker,

), before considering Siraj’s reasons “in turn,”

Siraj

seizes on the district court’s – and Brooker’s – use of the disjunctive and insists that

the district court only considered his arguments in isolation, not in combination.

But the better reading of the district court’s language is as an acknowledgement

5 that if one reason is irrelevant “in isolation,” it may become relevant “[in]

combination.” See Brooker,

; cf. Concepcion v. United States,

(2022) (describing how, “consistent with their responsibility to sentence

the whole person before them,” “courts historically have . . . consider[ed] all

relevant information” in sentencing proceedings).

Here, the record reflects that the district court considered and rejected each

of Siraj’s arguments for compassionate release, finding that none of them even

slightly favored the granting of his motion. There is nothing in the record to

suggest that the district court neglected to assess the cumulative weight of Siraj’s

arguments. Although Siraj ultimately takes issue with the district court’s

assessment, our precedent makes clear that disagreement with the district court’s

conclusion is simply “not a sufficient ground for finding an abuse of discretion.”

Halvon,

.

Siraj likewise identifies no facts that the district court overlooked and fails

to show that the district court “rendered a decision that cannot be located within

the range of permissible decisions.” Saladino,

. The court

considered the letter submitted by Siraj and credited Siraj’s statements regarding

his rehabilitation as it saw fit. With respect to the lower sentence imposed on

6 Siraj’s codefendant, who was a cooperator, the court considered Siraj’s arguments

but ultimately found the disparity to be justified, and we see no reason to displace

the district court’s assessment of the facts for our own. See United States v.

Fernandez,

(2d Cir. 2024) (“[A] reasonable explanation for a

sentencing disparity [i]s readily apparent where there were varying degrees of

culpability and cooperation between the various defendants.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)). And while Siraj identifies a handful of defendants who received

similar sentences for conduct that, in his view, was more serious than his own,

there can be no doubt that Siraj’s conduct was extraordinarily serious, and he has

not demonstrated that the sentence he received was an extreme outlier. Again,

Siraj simply disagrees with the court’s conclusion that the reasons proffered in

support of his motion were not sufficiently “extraordinary and compelling” to

justify a sentence reduction. But this is a determination that “is best left to the

sound discretion of the trial court,” Brooker,

, and we see no reason

to second-guess it on appeal.

* * *

7 We have considered Siraj’s remaining arguments and find them to be

without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

8