United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria ( 2023 )

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