United States v. Rahman
| Decision Date | 24 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:15-cr-00178-GMN-GWF |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NAJEEB RAHMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Pending before the Court is Defendant Najeeb Rahman's ("Defendant") Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release; and to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (ECF No. 125).1 The Government filed a Response, (ECF No. 126), and a Sealed Exhibit, (ECF No. 127). Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 130), and two Supplements, (ECF Nos. 129, 131), to his Motion.2 For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
The parties are familiar with the facts, so the Court will not repeat them here except where necessary to resolve the Motion.
///
In January 2010, Defendant appeared in the District of Nevada, and pled guilty to Fraudulent Transactions with Access Devices Issued to Other Persons in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) (Count One), and Aggravated Identity Theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Count Two), in United States of America v. Najeeb Rahman, Case No. 2:08-cr-00126-KJD-PAL (D. Nev.).3 (Mins. of Proceedings, 2008 ECF Nos. 93, 94); (Plea Mem., 2008 ECF No. 95). Defendant was sentenced to a total of 72 months' custody and 3 years' supervised release. (Mins. of Proceedings, 2008 ECF No. 127).
In October 2013, Defendant began serving his term of supervised release. (Pet. for Warrant at 2, 2008 ECF No. 203). On October 3, 2014, the U.S. Probation Office filed a Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision alleging that Defendant had violated the terms of his supervised release by committing a new crime, Theft in violation of NRS 205.0832. (Id. at 3). Specifically, the Petition alleged Defendant fraudulently represented he owned a home and purported to rent it to a woman ("L.C."). (Id.). Defendant collected $4,300 from L.C., representing that the monies would cover first and last months' rent and security deposit. (Id.). However, Defendant did not provide the $4,300 to the actual owner of the home. (Id.).
Before Defendant's revocation hearing could occur, the Probation Office filed a second Petition for Warrant on March 11, 2015, which added allegations that Defendant violated the conditions of his supervision by entering financial contracts without the approval of his probation offer. (Pet. for Warrant at 2-3, 2008 ECF No. 223). According to the March 11, 2015 Petition, Defendant represented to a real estate agent that he was a "private lender" worth "millions" and offered to finance a loan for the purchaser of a church listed for $850,000. (Id. at2, 6). When the buyer of that church could not obtain other funding, the buyer entered into a financial contract with Defendant and gave Defendant $280,000 to cover the down payment and fees. (Id. at 2-3, 6). Defendant failed to deposit the money in escrow, fund the loan, or return the money. (Id. at 6). The March 11, 2015 Petition further alleged that Defendant's son came to L.C.'s residence on the evening of March 2, 2015, and that on a separate occasion, Defendant (through a third party) contacted L.C. and requested she call the District Attorney to drop theft charges against Defendant. (Id. at 4).
On March 25, 2015, Probation amended the first Petition for Warrant to allege that Defendant had committed a new crime, Grand Larceny in violation of NRS 205.220, based on his interactions with the church. (Addendum at 2, 2008 ECF No. 227).
On June 22, 2015, the Government and Defendant reached a plea agreement to resolve his supervised release violations, as well as new federal charges arising from Defendant's defrauding of the church. (Plea Agreement, 2008 ECF No. 247); (Plea Agreement, 2015 ECF No. 13). That same day, a revocation hearing was held, during which Defendant admitted to all the violations in the Petitions for Warrant (2008 ECF Nos. 203, 223), and the Addendum, (2008 ECF No. 229). (Mins. of Proceedings, 2008 ECF No. 246). District Judge Roger L. Hunt sentenced Defendant to 16 months' custody. (Revocation J., 2008 ECF No. 248).
On October 1, 2015, the Government filed a Criminal Information, (2015 ECF No. 11), in the instant case, charging Defendant with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349, and 3147. The basis of the Criminal Information was Defendant's interactions with the buyers of the church. (Id.).
Additionally, on October 1, 2015, this case was unsealed, and Defendant pled guilty pursuant to the same plea agreement executed on June 22, 2015. (Mins. of Proceedings, 2015 ECF No. 17). While Defendant's sentencing hearing was originally scheduled for January 11,2016, (see id.), the hearing was continued numerous times. (See, e.g., Orders Granting Stipulations to Continue, 2015 ECF Nos. 19, 22, 24, 27).
On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea, (2015 ECF No. 45). An evidentiary hearing was held, and on March 30, 2017, Defendant's Motion was denied. (Mins. of Proceedings, 2015 ECF No. 66). In April 2017, Defendant was sentenced to 96 months' custody to run "concurrent to NV Case # 2:08-cr-00126-RLH-PAL." (Mins. of Proceedings, 2015 ECF Nos. 72, 73); (J., 2015 ECF No. 75). At the time of Defendant's sentencing, Defendant had already completed his sentence in Case No. 2:08-cr-00126-RLH-PAL. (See Revocation J., 2008 ECF No. 248) (providing June 22, 2015, as the "date of imposition of judgment," and sentencing Defendant to 16 months' custody, with no supervision to follow). The instant case was assigned to the undersigned in June 2020. (Clerk's Notice, ECF No. 132).
Defendant is currently serving his sentence at the Englewood Federal Correctional Institute (FCI), and the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) website reflects March 4, 2023, as his release date. Find an Inmate, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited August 19, 2020). Defendant moves for compassionate release arguing his age and medical ailments put him at an increased risk of COVID-19 complications. (Def.'s Mot. ("Mot") at 7-14, ECF No. 125). Defendant further contends his release is warranted because his wife suffers from, inter alia, Alzheimer's and Defendant is the only available caregiver. (Id. at 15-18). Moreover, Defendant moves to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, asserting that Defendant "was to have received a 16-month credit for time served (whether through variance or imposition of concurrent sentence) which he has not received." (Id. at 22-26).
///
///
The compassionate release provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018), authorizes the sentencing court to modify a defendant's sentence in limited circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The sentencing court may order compassionate release, "if after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)," the defendant has demonstrated: (1) he has exhausted his administrative remedies; (2) "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a reduction in his sentence, and (3) he is not "a danger to the safety of any other person or the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); USSG § 1B1.13. Under United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13, "extraordinary and compelling reasons" include, among other things, terminal illnesses and medical conditions "that substantially diminish[] the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover." USSG § 1B1.13. The court may also consider "other reasons" including a "reason other than, or in combination with" a reason specifically provided in the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. The decision to grant compassionate release is in the sentencing court's discretion. See United States v. Wade, 2:99-cr-00257-CAS-3, 2020 WL 1864906, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020). The defendant is not entitled to be present for a hearing on a motion for compassionate release. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4).
Defendant seeks compassionate release due to the COVID-19 pandemic; his underlying health conditions; and his wife's health conditions and purported inability to care for herself. (Def.'s Mot. ("Mot.") at 13-18, 2015 ECF No. 125). The Government opposes, arguing that the BOP has successfully prevented the spread of COVID-19 to inmates at FCI Englewood;Defendant's health is stable; Defendant's wife's health does not warrant release; and Defendant remains a danger to the community. (Resp. at 13-21, 2015 ECF No. 126)
Before a defendant may file a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, he must either (1) exhaust any administrative appeals of the warden's refusal to bring a motion or (2) wait thirty days from the warden's receipt of the request, whichever is earlier. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Here, Defendant submitted his first petition for compassionate release to the warden in April 2018, on grounds that his wife was suffering from physiological and psychological maladies, and that Defendant was the only person available to care for her. (Mot. at 6); (Release Request, Ex. B to Resp., 2015 ECF No. 126-1). The warden denied that petition on June 26, 2018. (Mot. at 6); (Warden's Denial Letter, Ex. C to Resp., 2015 ECF No. 126-2). Defendant subsequently filed a request for reconsideration, which the warden also denied. (See Mot. at 6). On April 7, 2020, Defendant made a written request to the warden for home confinement citing the danger associated with COVID-19. (Id.). The warden denied this request on April 22, 2020. (Warden Denial Letter, Ex. 6 to Mot., 2015 ECF No. 125-6).
In light of the above, and because the Government does not dispute that Defendant has met the exhaustion requirement, the Court finds Defendant has sufficiently exhausted his administrative remedies.
To continue reading
Request your trial