United States v. Fields

Case: 25-10599 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

____________ United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 25-10599

FILED March 12, 2026

Summary Calendar

____________ Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Ryan Keith Fields,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:01-CR-127-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Ryan Keith Fields, federal prisoner # 27957-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Fields contends that non-retroactive changes to applicable laws and charging policies, coupled with his unusually long sentence, constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting him Case: 25-10599 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2026

No. 25-10599 relief under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), p.s. Because he did not present a theory of relief based upon § 1B1.13(b)(5) in the district court, we need not address his contentions on appeal as to that issue. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).

We review the denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). Even assuming Fields has cited an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release, he fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based upon its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).

The district court concluded that granting compassionate release would not reflect the needs for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of Fields’s offenses, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, adequately deter future crimes, or protect the public from Fields’s further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Although Fields asserts that the district court incorrectly weighed the § 3553(a) factors, his mere disagreement with the district court’s analysis does not establish an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.

AFFIRMED.