UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. 15-20437-1

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker

SISION P. NARANJO,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (ECF NO. 138)

On January 26, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a Rule 11 plea 

agreement to one count of interference with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2, and one count of using or carrying a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). On April 

27, 2016, this Court sentenced Defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 

108 months on the first count and 84 months on the second count, for a total of 264 

months, followed by a two -year term of supervised release. The matter is presently 

before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 

U.S.C § 3582(c).

Case 4:15-cr-20437-LVP-MJH ECF No. 161, PageID.835 Filed 11/02/21 Page 1 of 5
2

Applicable Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a defendant may move for compassionate 

release only after “fully exhaust[ing] all administrative rights to appeal a failure of 

the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf” or “the lapse of 30 

days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, 

whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Under the statute, a court may reduce a defendant’s term of imprisonment if it 

finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and after 

considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent they are 

applicable. 18 U.S.C.§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see also United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 

1098, 1113 (6th Cir. 2020). The burden is on the defendant to prove that 

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist to justify release under the statute. See, 

e.g., United States v. Kannell, No. 20-12635, 2021 WL 223485, at *1 (11th Cir. Jan. 

22, 2021) (“The movant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief under 

section 3582”); United States v. Melgarejo, 830 F. App’x 776, 778 (7th Cir. 2020) 

(“[the defendant] did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his circumstances 

were extraordinary and compelling”); cf. United States v. McClain, 691 F.3d 774, 

777 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that the defendant bears the burden to show he is entitled 

to reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).

Case 4:15-cr-20437-LVP-MJH ECF No. 161, PageID.836 Filed 11/02/21 Page 2 of 5
3

The factors set forth in § 3553(a) include a defendant’s history and 

characteristics; the nature and circumstances of the crimes; due consideration of the 

seriousness of the crimes; promoting respect for the law; providing just punishment; 

affording adequate deterrence; protecting the public from further crimes by the 

defendant; and providing him with any necessary correctional services and treatment. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Analysis

The § 3553(a) factors determine the outcome of Defendant’s motion. 

Defendant’s current convictions arise from a series of armed robberies throughout the 

Flint area during 2014 and 2015 by Defendant and other individuals. Defendant 

participated in 11 of those robberies. (Plea Agreement at 3-6, ECF No. 66 at 265-

69.) Firearms were brandished and pointed at employees during the robberies. (Id.) 

In the robbery for which Defendant was convicted, he brandished a firearm at an 

employee outside a store and ordered the employee back into the store at gunpoint, 

where the employee was ordered to open the registers and give Defendant and his 

accomplice the money inside. (Id. at 3, Pg ID 265.) Defendant then hit a second 

store employee in the head with his firearm and ordered that employee to open the 

store’s safe. (Id.) Defendant has several prior convictions, which include offenses 

involving weapons and/or assaultive behavior.

Case 4:15-cr-20437-LVP-MJH ECF No. 161, PageID.837 Filed 11/02/21 Page 3 of 5
4

The armed robbery spree that led to Defendant’s current conviction began just 

a few months after he was discharged from probation for possessing a pump action 

shotgun with a cut down stock. (PSR ¶ 117.) The weapon was discovered when 

officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle. (Id.) He told the officers that he had retrieved 

the weapon from his home and placed it into his vehicle after people at a bar were 

“acting a fool.” (Id.) A few years earlier, Defendant was convicted of assaulting an 

officer. (Id. ¶ 115.)

Finally, Defendant has served only a fraction of the imposed sentence.

As such, this Court continues to believe that the sentence imposed is just 

punishment for the offenses and necessary to deter Defendant from continuing to 

commit violent crimes.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF 

No. 138) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Linda V. Parker

LINDA V. PARKER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 2, 2021

Case 4:15-cr-20437-LVP-MJH ECF No. 161, PageID.838 Filed 11/02/21 Page 4 of 5
5

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of

record and/or pro se parties on this date, November 2, 2021, by electronic and/or

U.S. First Class mail.

s/Aaron Flanigan

Case Manager

Case 4:15-cr-20437-LVP-MJH ECF No. 161, PageID.839 Filed 11/02/21 Page 5 of 5