USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCIS CURTIS DAVIS, a/k/a Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00080-JAG-RCY-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2024 Decided: September 18, 2024

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis Curtis Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Jin Ah Lee, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:

Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi 1 appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion to credit and reduce his sentence. As-Salafi’s motion was essentially a motion for

clarification and reconsideration of the court’s order granting in part his motion for

compassionate release. In that order, the district court found that As-Salafi’s

post-sentencing rehabilitation and his family circumstances, when viewed together,

amounted to extraordinary and compelling circumstances supporting a reduced sentence.

After considering the

(a) sentencing factors, the district court reduced

As-Salafi’s term of imprisonment by sixty months and increased his term of supervised

release. The district court denied the instant motion, finding that its prior order adequately

considered As-Salafi’s arguments. On appeal, As-Salafi contends that the district court

failed to adequately consider additional circumstances following the court’s order and that

the court’s order granting compassionate release altered his consecutive sentence to one

that should run concurrently with his state sentence. We reject As-Salafi’s arguments and

affirm.

We review a district court’s decision on a motion for compassionate release for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Bethea,

(4th Cir. 2022). “Under

this standard, ‘this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the district court.’”

“A district court abuses its discretion when it acts ‘arbitrarily or irrationally,’ fails to follow

Although the caption refers to Appellant’s birthname of Francis Curtis Davis, 1

Appellant has legally changed his name to Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi. Accordingly, we refer to the Appellant as As-Salafi.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 6

statutory requirements, fails to ‘consider judicially recognized factors constraining its

exercise of discretion,’ relies ‘on erroneous factual or legal premises,’ or ‘commit[s] an

error of law.’”

“In analyzing a motion for compassionate release, district courts must determine:

(1) whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; and (2) that

such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” United States v. Malone,

(4th Cir. 2023). “Only after

this analysis may the district court grant the motion if (3) the relevant

(a)

factors, to the extent they are applicable, favor release.”

We presume that the district court sufficiently considered relevant factors in

deciding a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. United States v. Jenkins,

(4th Cir.

2021). “Although a district court is not required to address each of a defendant’s arguments

for a reduced sentence, just how much of an explanation is required depends upon the

narrow circumstances of the particular case.”

. “[T]he touchstone in assessing

the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation must be whether the district court set forth

enough to satisfy our court that it has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned

basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority, so as to allow for meaningful

appellate review.” United States v. Hargrove,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

In determining whether a district court abused its discretion in analyzing the

§ 3553(a) factors for a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, “it weighs against an abuse of discretion—

and is viewed as ‘significant’—when the same judge who sentenced the defendant rules on

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 4 of 6

the compassionate release motion.” Bethea,

. Moreover, “district courts

have extremely broad discretion when determining the weight to be given each of the

§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Nance,

(4th Cir. 2020).

On appeal, As-Salafi first argues that the district court erred by not adequately

considering his mother’s declining circumstances. However, the district court explicitly

considered As-Salafi’s mother’s “precarious” position, her need for assistance, her health

problems, and the loss of her job and home. The district court noted that it had already

determined that As-Salafi had shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for release

and that the additional facts presented by As-Salafi did not alter the § 3553 calculus.

As-Salafi’s argument that the district court did not properly consider his family’s

updated circumstances conflates the “extraordinary and compelling” requirement and the

§ 3553(a) analysis, which are two separate steps. That is, while the needs of family

members may contribute to or satisfy the extraordinary and compelling circumstance

component of the analysis, the sentencing factors in § 3553(a) do not focus on such

considerations. Instead, these factors consider the history and characteristics of the

prisoner himself and the needs of society. See

(a) (listing relevant

sentencing factors). As such, his mother’s circumstances were only material to a question

already decided in As-Salafi’s favor and, thus, further facts and developments did not

require extensive analysis by the district court. 2

2 On appeal, As-Salafi also contends that the district court erred in failing to consider his uncle’s need for assistance. As-Salafi only briefly mentioned his uncle’s need for care in district court, and his attorney did not mention this issue at all. However, it appears that (Continued) 4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 5 of 6

Next, As-Salafi argues that, although apparently unintended, the removal of

language running his sentence consecutively to his state sentence in the order granting

compassionate release required that his sentences run concurrently. This claim is without

merit. Notably, As-Salafi’s counsel specifically sought clarification of the court’s intent

and did not make the instant argument below. In any event, in the absence of a statement

by the sentencing court, sentences imposed at different times will be run consecutively.

(a). Finally, As-Salafi’s technical arguments regarding his state and federal

custody and the operative effect of the language in his amended judgment, even if

meritorious, should be considered in a

petition. As-Salafi provides no

argument as to how his interpretation, which is admittedly at odds with the court’s stated

intent to run the sentences consecutively, would alter the court’s weighing of the § 3553

factors and the exercise of its discretion.

Finally, As-Salafi asserts that he is genuinely remorseful and expressed this to the

district court following the court’s partial grant of compassionate release. However, it was

within the court’s discretion to find that As-Salafi’s statements did not reflect his genuine

feelings, illustrate his understanding of the harm that he caused, or demonstrate actual

growth. We decline to review what is essentially a credibility finding by the district court

judge who presided over As-Salafi’s initial sentencing as well as his various motions since.

As-Salafi’s uncle had both a wife and As-Salafi’s mother as help and support. In any event, As-Salafi’s uncle has now unfortunately passed away, so any error by the district court in failing to consider this circumstance would no longer be relevant.

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7153 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/18/2024 Pg: 6 of 6

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6