United States of America v. Abdella A. Tounisi

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 24, 2024*
Decided July 25, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1283
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ABDELLA A. TOUNISI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 13-cr-00328
Andrea R. Wood,
Judge.
O R D E R
Abdella Tounisi, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Because the district court did not
abuse its discretion, we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-1283 Page 2
Tounisi planned to travel to Syria to join Jabhat al-Nusrah, a militant terrorist
group associated with al-Qaeda, but federal agents arrested him at the airport gate. He
is serving a 180-month sentence in prison after pleading guilty in 2015 to one count of
knowingly attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).
Tounisi moved for compassionate release in August 2022 based on medical
concerns and, in October 2023, he submitted an “emergency request” that essentially
supplemented his pending motion. He argued that his immuno-compromised status
(caused by a prescription medication) and his health conditions (including psoriasis,
psoriatic arthritis, asthma, and GERD) placed him at risk of severe illness were he to
contract COVID-19 in prison. He also outlined a plan for his release whereby he would
move in with his parents and quarantine to keep himself safe from the virus.
The government responded that Tounisi was already being treated for his
medical conditions and that he had not demonstrated that he was particularly
vulnerable to serious complications from COVID-19. In any case, the government
argued, early release would be unwarranted considering the seriousness of Tounisi’s
crime. Tounisi replied that his conduct had resulted not from a desire to support
terrorism per se but from a youthful, misguided willingness to “help those in need”
abroad, so his release would not compromise public safety.
The district court denied compassionate release. It explained that Tounisi had
been vaccinated against COVID-19, so his risk of contracting the illness was not an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Further, Tounisi did not provide any
evidence that his use of an immunosuppressive drug rendered the COVID-19 vaccine
less effective. In any case, explained the court, the gravity of Tounisi’s crime and the
substantial need to protect the public weighed against early release. In so concluding,
the court expressed concern that Tounisi seemed not to renounce fully his previous
sympathies with the terrorist group and that, in his reply brief, he seemed to minimize
his criminal conduct.
On appeal, Tounisi asserts that the district court should have considered the
effects of his underlying health conditions cumulatively and in the context of his
asserted immunodeficiency. But even if the district court had done so, his motion would
fail. The court provided an independent and sufficient reason to deny his request.
See United States v. Rucker, 27 F.4th 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[J]ust one good reason for
denying a compassionate-release motion suffices.”). Specifically, it explained that the
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) cautioned against releasing him early.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1283 Page 3
Tounisi says that the court mis-weighed the factors by failing to adequately consider his
medical predicament and acceptance of responsibility, and he insists that the years he
has spent in prison, alongside his release plans and good behavior while incarcerated,
are enough to warrant a reduced sentence. But disputing how the district court weighed
the factors is a losing battle, see Rucker, 27 F.4th at 563; unless the court abused its
considerable discretion, we will not reverse a denial of compassionate release. United
States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court determined
that the § 3553(a) factors—especially the severity of Tounisi’s crime and need to protect
the public—did not favor early release, and that rationale suffices to support the denial
of relief.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --