The Supreme Court will not take up the case of a Florida college professor, Sami Al-Arian, who objected to the 57-month prison sentence he received after pleading guilty to aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Al-Arian’s request, known as a petition for certiorari, was denied without comment from the justices, according to a list released by the court’s clerk yesterday morning.

In his petition, Al-Arian argued that Judge James Moody Jr. improperly punished him for conduct of which he was acquitted during a six-month jury trial in 2005.

“The record of the … sentencing hearing unambiguously demonstrates that the sentencing court did hold ‘acquitted conduct’ against the defendant, to justify extending his incarceration for nearly a year,” an attorney for Al-Arian, C. Peter Erlinder of William Mitchell School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., wrote. “It is difficult to imagine a clearer case for the need for protection against judicial hubris.”

At trial, Al-Arian was acquitted on eight charges, including conspiracy to murder and maim. The jury failed to reach a verdict on nine other counts, including a wide-ranging racketeering conspiracy count.

The former professor recently mounted a two-month hunger strike after he was held in contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating Islamic charities in Virginia. He contends that his plea deal prevents the government from requiring his testimony.

Mr. Erlinder complained that, at sentencing, Judge James Moody Jr. called Al-Arian a liar, blamed him for statements made by a co-defendant, and said Al-Arian was guilty of crimes of violence. The defense attorney claimed the Constitution barred the judge from considering those factors because, Mr. Erlinder said, the jury acquitted Al-Arian on some of those points.

A New Jersey attorney, Stephen Flatow, whose daughter, Alisa, was killed in a Palestinian Islamic Jihad attack, said he was pleased with the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Al-Arian’s appeal. “I think the judge was expressing his sentiments. He is free to use his sentiments as a judge, having heard the evidence as well as the jury, to impose a sentence,” Mr. Flatow said in an interview. “My disappointment is not with the judge, but the jury.”

Mr. Erlinder and a spokesman for the prosecution did not respond to messages yesterday seeking comment on the Supreme Court’s action.