Court Opinion

ID: 9958047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 14:00:43.496658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.612354
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50193            Document: 49-1          Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/05/2024

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

                                     No. 23-50193
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                   April 5, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Damian Gonzalez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:15-CR-1946-4
                   ______________________________

Before Davis, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Damian Gonzalez, federal prisoner #61229-380, was convicted of par-
ticipating in a marihuana and money-laundering conspiracy. He appeals,
pro se, the denial of his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. We affirm.

                                             I.
       Gonzalez was convicted in 2016 of conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute marihuana over one-hundred kilograms in violation of 21 U.S.C.
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-50193           Document: 49-1          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                       No. 23-50193

§ 841 and conspiracy to launder money instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956. The district court sentenced him to 210 months.
        In 2022, Gonzalez filed a Rule 35(b) motion seeking to reduce his
sentence to one to five years of probation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b).
Gonzalez claimed that a sentence reduction was appropriate because (1) he
would have received a lesser sentence following the removal of hemp from
the federal schedule of controlled substances; 1 (2) recent amendments to
various states’ marihuana laws show that the drug is innocuous; (3) he wants
to support his daughter and care for his chronically ill parents; and (4) his
prison record is exemplary.
       The government responded by averring that only it may file motions
for reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b). Gonzales, in reply, maintained
that his requested relief was warranted and that his motion was procedurally
proper.
       The district court found that Gonzalez’s motion was procedurally
deficient. After observing that “both Rule 35(b)(1) and (b)(2) [are] applica-
ble only upon the ‘government’s motion,’” the court ruled that Rule 35(b)
did not permit requests for relief from non-government parties. 2 Thus, on
February 16, 2023, the court entered its order denying Gonzales’ motion.
       Twenty days later, on March 8, Gonzales mailed his pro se notice of
appeal, which was filed on March 16.

                                            II.
        As a threshold matter, we address jurisdiction. Gonzalez filed his

        _____________________
        1
        See Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 5018 (2018);
21 U.S.C. § 802(16)(B)(i).
        2
            See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b)(1)–(2) (“Upon the government’s motion . . . .”).

                                            2
 Case: 23-50193           Document: 49-1            Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                        No. 23-50193

notice of appeal twenty-eight days after entry of the district court’s order. 3
It was therefore untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A).
        Nonetheless, we are not deprived of jurisdiction. In a criminal case,
the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a non-jurisdictional requirement that
can be forfeited or waived. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388–
89 (5th Cir. 2007). The government does not contest the timeliness of Gon-
zalez’s notice of appeal. So that issue is forfeited. See Rollins v. Home Depot
USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                             III.
        On appeal, Gonzalez does not challenge the district court’s finding his
Rule 35(b) claim procedurally deficient. 4 Instead, he contends that he
actually brought a “motion for compassionate release.” In other words,
Gonzales asserts that, as a pro se litigant, his Rule 35(b) motion for reduction
of sentence should be liberally reconstrued as a motion for compassionate
release under 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
        True, we “liberally construe [the] briefs of pro se litigants and apply
less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to parties repre-
sented by counsel.” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). None-
theless, pro se litigants—like all other parties—remain subject to rules of

        _____________________
        3
        The prison mailbox rule does not apply because Gonzalez’s notice of appeal was
not “deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing.”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (emphasis added).
        4
           Gonzalez has therefore forfeited any claim of error regarding the district court’s
denial of relief under Rule 35(b). See, e.g., Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008)
(“[E]ven pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them.”); Welsh v.
Unknown Male Shift Supervisor, No. 23-10171, 2023 WL 6533457, at *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 6,
2023) (per curiam) (unpublished).

                                               3
 Case: 23-50193            Document: 49-1          Page: 4       Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                         No. 23-50193

waiver and forfeiture. 5 So, litigants—even pro se ones—may not press issues
“that were not presented to the district court for its consideration in ruling
on the motion.” Grogan v. Kumar, 873 F.3d 273, 277 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915 (5th Cir. 1992)).
        Even when liberally construed, Gonzalez’s motion cannot reasonably
be interpreted as raising an independent claim for compassionate release
under § 3582(c). 6
        First, Rule 35(b) is the only basis for relief expressly mentioned in
either of Gonzalez’s district court filings. Indeed, his certificates of service
expressly refer to his motion and reply as “Federal Rule Criminal Procedure
35(b) motion” and “F.R. Crim. P. 35 Reply Motion,” respectively. That
alone, by negative implication, suggests that Gonzalez was not pursuing other
potential bases for relief. 7
        Second, mere allusions to a potential basis for relief do not raise a claim
before the district court. Though Gonzalez’s filings mention § 3582(c)
twice—once in his motion and once in his reply—neither instance suggests
that § 3582(c) formed an independent basis for relief: In Gonzalez’s motion,
§ 3582(c)(2) is mentioned merely to contextualize the court’s analysis of the
§ 3553 sentencing factors in United States v. Kennedy, No. 91-473 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 102511 (E.D. La. Aug. 5, 2015). Then, at the end of his reply’s
discussion of the § 3553 factors, Gonzalez mentions a different provision—

        _____________________
        5
            See FDIC v. Mijalis, 15 F.3d 1314, 1326 (5th Cir. 1994); Grant, 59 F.3d at 524–25.
        6
           Cf. Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426–27 (5th Cir. 2011) (“It is the substance
of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it,
that determines the true nature and operative effect of a habeas filing.”).
        7
          Cf. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The
Interpretation of Legal Texts 107 (2012) (observing widespread use of the
negative-implication canon “in our daily lives”).

                                               4
 Case: 23-50193          Document: 49-1          Page: 5       Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                       No. 23-50193

§ 3852(c)(1)(A)—prepended with an “e.g.” signal.
        Those two instances show that § 3582(c) was, at most, context for
Gonzalez’s contention that the § 3553 factors justified relief under
Rule 35(b). Given that the § 3553 factors apply to all federal criminal sen-
tencing, 8 their mere mention fails to “intimate”—much less “press”—an
independent claim for compassionate release under § 3582(c). United States
v. Jasso, 587 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
        Consequently, Gonzalez forfeited his claim for compassionate release
under 28 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) “by failing to raise it in the first instance in
the district court.” Rollins, 8 F.4th at 397; see Grogan, 873 F.3d at 277.
        AFFIRMED.

        _____________________
        8
          See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 n.6 (2007) (“Section 3553(a) lists seven
factors that a sentencing court must consider.”).

                                             5