United States v. Smith

Case: 25-50543 Document: 33-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-50543 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 11, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Daniel Thomason Smith, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CR-39-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Daniel Thomason Smith, federal prisoner # 29163-380, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that his unusually long sentence, coupled with a change in the law made by

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-50543 Document: 33-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2026

No. 25-50543

Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying his release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), p.s.

Through his IFP motion, Smith challenges the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus, our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal citation omitted). We do not consider Smith’s conclusory assertions that the district court (1) violated his constitutional rights by issuing a sanction warning and denying him counsel, and (2) exhibited bias. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8).

As Smith (who admits it) has not yet served 10 years of his sentence, he does not qualify for the relief he requests. See § 1B1.13(b)(6), p.s. In any event, he fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue as to whether the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020); Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. The district court cited the nature and circumstances of Smith’s offenses, his criminal history, and the need to provide just punishment and adequately deter criminal conduct as reasons for denying compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(B). While Smith challenges the loss calculation and criminal history cited by the district court, both are fully supported by the presentence report. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. To the extent he disagrees with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, Smith fails to show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY the IFP motion and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.