BLD-201 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 21-1463
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MANUEL GONZALEZ,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-14-cr-00015-001)
District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert
____________________________________
Submitted on the Appellee’s Motion for Summary Affirmance
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 17, 2021
Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and PORTER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 23, 2021)
_________
OPINION *
_________
PER CURIAM
Appellant Manuel Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s
order denying his motion for compassionate release filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the
reasons that follow, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the
District Court’s judgment. 1
After a trial in 2014, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania found Gonzalez guilty of possessing a firearm while a convicted
felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). The District Court sentenced
him in 2015 to a term of 200 months in prison, based in part on a sentencing
enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act. However, after the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), the
District Court granted his motion to vacate sentence and resentenced Gonzalez without
the enhancement to a term of 120 months in prison. He is currently scheduled for release
on September 23, 2022.
In January 2021, Gonzalez submitted a pro se motion for compassionate release
from custody. 2 He claimed to suffer from serious medical conditions that, when
considered with prison conditions, placed him at a significantly higher risk for severe
complications if he caught the COVID-19 virus. The District Court denied the motion,
and Gonzalez filed this timely appeal. After Gonzalez filed an informal opening brief,
the Government moved to summarily affirm the District Court’s order denying
compassionate release.
1
We also grant the Government’s motion to be excused from filing a brief.
2
Gonzalez initially sought compassionate release from the warden of his prison. The
warden denied the request.
2
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
District Court’s order for an abuse of discretion and will not disturb that decision unless
the District Court committed a clear error of judgment after weighing the relevant factors.
See United States v. Pawlowski, 967 F.3d 327, 330 (3d Cir. 2020). We may summarily
affirm a district court’s decision “on any basis supported by the record” if the appeal fails
to present a substantial question. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir.
2011) (per curiam).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a sentence if
extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction. Before granting
compassionate release, however, a district court must consider “the factors set forth in
[18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Those
factors include, among other things, “the history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, . . . to provide just punishment for the
offense[,] . . . to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and to “protect the
public from further crimes of the defendant,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C).
Here, the District Court concluded that Gonzalez’s health factors, including
obesity, high blood pressure, and prediabetes did not constitute “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons for his release. See District Court Memorandum at 3-6. The
District Court continued that, even if Gonzalez had demonstrated “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons, a balancing of the applicable § 3553(a) factors did not support
granting Gonzalez compassionate release. Id. at 6. The District Court noted that
3
Gonzalez is serving his present sentence for possessing a loaded weapon while on parole
for two violent offenses in which he used a gun. The Court explained that Gonzalez had
chosen to do this even after serving long sentences for those violent firearm offenses, and
that his release would not “reflect the seriousness of his offense, promote respect for the
law, provide just punishment or afford adequate deterrence.” Id. (citing § 3553(a)(2)(A)-
(B)). The District Court concluded that Gonzalez remains a danger to the community
because he continues, undeterred, to illegally possess and use firearms. See id. (citing
§ 3553(a)(2)(C)).
On appeal, Gonzalez does not challenge the District Court’s conclusions drawn
after weighing of the section 3553(a) factors at all. Instead, he argues that the District
Court impermissibly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, a policy statement in the Guidelines, in
its “extraordinary and compelling” analysis. However, Gonzalez’s argument is
inapposite. Here, the District Court made clear that, regardless of whether he met the
“extraordinary and compelling” standard, the application of the section 3553(a) factors
worked against Gonzalez’s release. See Dist. Ct. Mem. at 1, 6. We discern no error of
judgment here. See Pawlowski, 967 F.3d at 330-31 (holding that the district court did not
abuse its discretion by deciding that § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting
compassionate release).
Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we grant the
Government’s motion to summarily affirm, and we will summarily affirm the District
Court’s February 19, 2021 judgment. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
4