United States v. Marquez

── United States v. Marquez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: Non Direct Criminal Case: 25-50866 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals No. 25-50866 Fifth Circuit Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 24, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Marquez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-242-1 ______________________________ Before Davis, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jose Marquez, federal prisoner # 42452-177, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Marquez argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because it failed to address or give reasoned consideration to his arguments concerning rehabilitation, mitigation, low risk _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50866 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2026 No. 25-50866 of recidivism, his advanced age, his plan for reentry after release, sentencing disparities, and his remorse. He additionally contends that the district court’s reasons for denying relief are insufficient to permit appellate review. We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court’s reasoned order indicates that it adequately considered and rejected the arguments that Marquez raised in his motion and concluded that consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). Marquez’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is not a sufficient basis for determining that the district court abused its discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. We additionally reject Marquez’s argument that the district court erred by citing in its order denying his motion the drug quantities for which he was found accountable in his presentence report because those quantities were speculative and unreliable. The attempt by Marquez to challenge his sentence fails, as “a prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence.” Escajeda, 58 F.4th at 187. We need not consider Marquez’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Marquez asks that his case be reassigned to a different district court judge. His request is of no moment because he has not shown that the district