Case: 23-50609 Document: 00517057912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 6, 2024 No. 23-50609 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jose Luis Corrales, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-491-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Jose Luis Corrales, federal prisoner # 35976-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Corrales contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his guilty plea and sentencing; his guilty plea was involuntary; and that several trial court errors occurred with respect to his guilty plea and his sentencing. Based on these _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-50609 Document: 00517057912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2024

No. 23-50609

claims, he implicitly argues that those factors constitute sufficiently extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying compassionate release. He further argues that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of his compassionate release.

We review the denial of Corrales’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). “[A] prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence. . . . .” United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). As such, Corrales fails to demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling circumstances justify compassionate release. Furthermore, Corrales does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against compassionate release. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The judgment of the district court is therefore, in all respects, AFFIRMED.