Court Opinion

ID: 9380423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-18 00:00:22.761047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.889677
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50947        Document: 00516680466             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/17/2023

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

                                      No. 22-50947
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                March 17, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   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.
Case: 22-50947       Document: 00516680466         Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50947

   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

                                          2
Case: 22-50947     Document: 00516680466           Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/17/2023

                                    No. 22-50947

   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.

                                         3