Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

pleamotioncopyrightleasepiracy
defendantmotionlease

Related Cases

Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498
View Case »
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. Causey and Jeffrey K. Skilling, Defendants., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1243912
View Case »
People v. Ratliff, 41 Cal.3d 675, 715 P.2d 665, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705
View Case »
Taylor v. Com. of Pa., 686 F.Supp. 492
View Case »
O’Hagan v. U.S., 52 Ct.Cl. 535, 1917 WL 689
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Jamil, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 2614877

Facts

Walid Jamil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement in 2016, resulting in an 84-month sentence. He is a 60-year-old diabetic with hypertension and high cholesterol, conditions that make him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. After submitting a request for compassionate release due to these health issues, which was denied by the Warden, Jamil filed a motion for the court to consider his release.

Defendant Jamil is a sixty-year-old diabetic who suffers from hypertension and high cholesterol. Defendant Jamil takes insulin twice daily along with a number of other medications.

Issue

Whether Walid Jamil is entitled to compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to extraordinary and compelling reasons related to his health and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Whether Walid Jamil is entitled to compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to extraordinary and compelling reasons related to his health and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rule

A court may grant a motion for compassionate release if it finds extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction and that the reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

A court may grant a motion for compassionate release if it finds extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

Analysis

The court analyzed Jamil's request by first confirming that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. It then considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting that while Jamil's offenses were serious, he had no prior criminal history, had accepted responsibility, and had not committed any violations during his incarceration. The court also recognized that Jamil's medical conditions significantly increased his risk of severe illness from COVID-19, which further supported his request for compassionate release.

The Court begins its analysis with a consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors before turning to whether Defendant Jamil demonstrated that 'extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant [a sentence] reduction.'

Conclusion

The court granted Jamil's motion for compassionate release, modifying his sentence to time served and requiring that the remainder of his sentence be served under home confinement.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors weigh in favor of granting Defendant Jamil's motion for compassionate release.

Who won?

Walid Jamil prevailed in the case as the court granted his motion for compassionate release based on his health vulnerabilities and the risks posed by COVID-19.

The Court shares the Government's concerns about potential sentencing disparities and notes that this factor, § 3553(a)(6), presents a close call.

You must be