United States v. Narvaez

Opinion

Case: 25-20039 Document: 98-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________

FILED

August 26, 2026

No. 25-20039 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Francisco Javier Narvaez,

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:90-CR-428-2

______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Francisco Javier Narvaez, federal prisoner # 83442-020, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that the district court failed to read his current motion, given misstatements in the order about the issues raised, and failed to conduct a contemporaneous review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as the court cited solely to the circumstances surrounding his offense,

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-20039 Document: 98-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2026

No. 25-20039

incorrectly stated that Narvaez did not address the § 3553(a) factors, and failed to reference any of his cited favorable post-sentencing conduct.

We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court’s identification of the issues raised reflects that it properly considered Narvaez’s most recent compassionate release motion. The ruling also reflects a contemporaneous assessment of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011). The district court was not required to analyze every factor set forth in § 3553(a) to explain its discretionary denial of the motion. See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Narvaez’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors does not show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.