United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-50947

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:92-CR-65-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, federal prisoner # 59761-079, moves 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release and his 

postjudgment motion. He argues that the district court erred in denying his 

motion for compassionate release because the court failed to consider his 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50947 Document: 00516680466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-50947

2

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the district court’s 

balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not consider changes in the 

law, his post-sentencing redemptive conduct, the reduction of public safety 

concerns due to his release plan, his mandatory deportation status, or his low 

recidivism score. This is incorrect. As the Supreme Court stated in 

Concepcion v. United States, “[t]he First Step Act does not ‘require courts to 

expressly rebut each argument’ made by the parties.” 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 

(2022) (quoting United States v. Maxwell, 991 F.3d 685, 694 (6th Cir. 2021)). 

Further, “a district court is not required to be persuaded by every argument 

parties make, and it may, in its discretion, dismiss arguments that it does not 

find compelling without a detailed explanation.” Id. Instead, “[a]ll that the 

First Step Act requires is that a district court make clear that it reasoned 

through the parties’ arguments.” Id. (cleaned up). The district court’s 

detailed explanation denying the motion in reliance of the § 3553(a) factors 

did just that. See id.; United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 

2020).

Additionally, to the extent that Gonzalez-Longoria contends that the 

district court viewed the Guidelines as mandatory, the record belies this 

contention. Although Gonzalez-Longoria also argues that there was judicial 

bias due to subsequently corrected inaccuracies in the record, there is no 

indication in the district court’s decision that such alleged inaccuracies were 

considered. Otherwise, Gonzalez-Longoria’s arguments challenging the 

district court’s assessment of the § 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a 

disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is 

insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 

948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Gonzalez-Longoria makes no 

nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying 

relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider 

his arguments regarding the existence of extraordinary and compelling 

Case: 22-50947 Document: 00516680466 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2023
No. 22-50947

3

circumstances. 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).

In light of the foregoing, Gonzalez-Longoria fails to demonstrate that 

he could raise a nonfrivolous argument challenging the district court’s denial 

of his compassionate release motion. Accordingly, the IFP motion is

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See, e.g., Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 

220 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-50947 Document: 00516680466 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/17/2023