USA v. Naranjo, No. 21-50961 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-50961 Document: 00516281400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 14, 2022 No. 21-50961 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Rudy Naranjo, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-134-1 Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Rudy Naranjo, federal prisoner # 65240-080, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-50961 Document: 00516281400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 No. 21-50961 The district court specifically cited the nature of Naranjo’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, provide just punishment, adequately deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from his further crimes; in addition, the district court noted that no reduction was necessary to provide Naranjo needed medical care. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(D). Although Naranjo disagrees at length with the district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, his disagreement is not sufficient grounds for reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors adequately supports the denial, we do not reach Naranjo’s remaining arguments. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. AFFIRMED. 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.