USCA11 Case: 22-11762 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11762
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS ENRIQUE RENTERIA GRANADOS,
a.k.a. El Viejo,
a.k.a. El Tio,
a.k.a. Senor,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11762 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11762
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20801-WPD-1
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Renteria Granados, a federal prisoner, appeals the de-
nial of his motion for compassionate release.
18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court ruled that Granados failed to
identify an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant early
release, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, and the statutory sentencing factors
weighed against granting sentencing relief,
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The
United States moves for a summary affirmance and to stay the
briefing schedule. Because “the position of [the United States] . . . is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial
question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc.
v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), we grant the motion
for summary affirmance and deny as moot the motion to stay the
briefing schedule.
Granados pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent
to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a
vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
46 U.S.C.
§§ 70503(a), 70506(b). At sentencing, the district court found the
amount of cocaine involved—six tons—was an aggravating
USCA11 Case: 22-11762 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-11762 Opinion of the Court 3
circumstance, and Granados’s age, medical issues, and attempts at
substantial assistance were mitigating circumstances. The district
court granted a downward variance from Granados’s advisory
guideline range of 135 to 168 months of imprisonment and sen-
tenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months,
finding that this sentence was “sufficient to promote respect for the
law and to act as a deterrent on a 69-year-old individual.” Granados
did not appeal.
Granados unsuccessfully moved pro se for compassionate
release in 2020 and 2021. In 2022, Granados again moved for com-
passionate release. He argued that his age of 74 years and medical
conditions increased his risk of serious illness or death from a
COVID-19 infection and constituted an extraordinary and compel-
ling reason to reduce his sentence. Granados also argued that his
good behavior, rehabilitation in prison, and minimal risk to the
public due to his age warranted a sentence reduction.
The district court denied Granados’s motion to reduce his
sentence. In considering the section 3553(a) factors, the district
court stated that Granados’s offense involved “six (6) tons of co-
caine” and that it was exercising its discretion to deny a sentence
reduction because a reduction “would not promote respect for the
law or act as a deterrent.” And the district court reaffirmed its pre-
vious finding that Granados had failed to prove that his medical
conditions rose to the level of extraordinary and compelling.
Summary affirmance is appropriate because there is no sub-
stantial question that Granados is not entitled to compassionate
USCA11 Case: 22-11762 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11762
release. See Groendyke,
406 F.2d at 1162. Granados does not dis-
pute that the district court had the authority to deny his motion to
reduce based solely on its determination that relief was inappropri-
ate based on the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v.
Tinker,
14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). Instead, Granados
argues that the district court abused its discretion in considering
the statutory factors by “not getting past the ‘six tons of cocaine’
and considering his post conviction rehabilitation.” But the district
court was not required to afford any weight to Granados’s rehabil-
itation, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.3, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion by placing greater weight on the seriousness of
Granados’s offense and the need to provide deterrence and pro-
mote respect for the law. See United States v. Harris,
989 F.3d 908,
912 (11th Cir. 2021). And because we can affirm on this alternative
ground stated by the district court, we need not address Granados’s
arguments that his medical conditions qualified as an extraordinary
and compelling reason to justify his early release. See Tinker, 14
F.4th at 1237; Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678,
680 (11th Cir. 2014).
We GRANT the motion for summary affirmance, AFFIRM
the denial of Granados’s motion for compassionate release, and
DENY AS MOOT the motion to stay the briefing schedule.
