Case: 23-50387 Document: 00517056995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50387 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 6, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Silvestre Garcia-Gonzalez, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-483-3 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Silvestre Garcia-Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 50704-051, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that his young age at the time of the offense, the sentencing errors in the computation of his sentence, and his counsel’s ineffectiveness constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50387 Document: 00517056995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2024

No. 23-50387

warranting relief. Garcia-Gonzalez also moves for the appointment of counsel and for discovery of sealed documents.

The district court denied Garcia-Gonzalez’s motion on the basis that a balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant compassionate relief. Garcia-Gonzalez’s failure to challenge these findings constitutes an abandonment of the issue on appeal. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). To the extent Garcia-Gonzalez’s arguments are construed as a challenge to his conviction or original sentence, such a challenge is not appropriately raised on appeal from the denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). Lastly, to the extent that Garcia-Gonzalez seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he cites no new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court or newly discovered evidence that would establish by clear and convincing evidence his innocence. See § 2255(h).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). Garcia-Gonzalez’s motions are DENIED.