United States v. Naranjo

Opinion

Case: 25-50806 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50806 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 16, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

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 Smith, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Rudy Naranjo, federal prisoner #65240-080, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He asserts that the district court erred by basing its denial on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) analysis from his initial sentencing and by failing to explain its deci- sion adequately.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50806 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2026

No. 25-50806

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for com- passionate release. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693–94 (5th Cir. 2020). Even assuming that Naranjo has cited an extraordinary and compel- ling reason warranting compassionate release, he fails to show that the dis- trict court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the § 3553(a) fac- tors. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). Contrary to Naranjo’s contention, the district court did not adopt the § 3553(a) analysis from his initial sentencing but instead reviewed the briefs, agreed with the government’s § 3553(a) analysis, and based its decision on the nature and circumstances of the offenses of conviction, Naranjo’s crim- inal history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect for the law, provide just punish- ment, afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, and protect the public from Naranjo’s further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)–(C). While Naranjo asserts that the district court’s explanation fails to satisfy the requirements in Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 116 (2018), he is incorrect. Finally, to the extent that Naranjo merely disagrees with the dis- trict court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, he does not establish an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. AFFIRMED.