USA v. Randall, No. 22-30293 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-30293 Document: 00516548893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 22-30293 Summary Calendar November 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Randy L. Randall, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CR-317-8 Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Randy L. Randall, federal prisoner # 15699-035, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that because the Government conceded in response to an earlier § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion that his allegations related to COVID-19 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 22-30293 Document: 00516548893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2022 No. 22-30293 constituted an extraordinary and compelling circumstance, the district court could not consider the issue. In addition, Randall maintains that because his refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine was based on a sincerely held religious belief, the district court’s reliance on his refusal to deny relief violated his First Amendment rights. Finally, Randall argues that the district court should have taken into account the Custody Classification Form created by the Bureau of Prisons in analyzing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and should not have given weight to his criminal history or his prison disciplinary record. We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court conducted an independent review of the § 3553(a) factors and concluded that Randall was not entitled to relief. Randall has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in this conclusion. See id. at 693; see also Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct 2389, 2404-05 (2022). Because the district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the dismissal, it is unnecessary to consider Randall’s arguments challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2 Accordingly, the
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.
