USA v. Carrera, No. 21-10575 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10575 Document: 00516282405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 18, 2022 No. 21-10575 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jonas Carrera, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14-CR-367-40 Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jonas Carrera, federal prisoner #12834-180, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. The district court determined that even had Carrera shown extraordinary and compelling * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-10575 Document: 00516282405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2022 No. 21-10575 reasons as required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief. Specifically, the court cited the nature of Carrera’s offense of conviction, his history and characteristics, and the needs for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of his offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A). Carrera does not address the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis and has therefore abandoned any challenge to it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Since the district court’s § 3553(a) determination alone constitutes an adequate basis for denying Carrera compassionate release, we do not reach his remaining arguments. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 69394 (5th Cir. 2020). Carrera fails to identify a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Therefore, his IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.