U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

United States v. Smith

United States v. Smith
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided September 2, 2026
United States v. Smith

Opinion

Case: 25-20500 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-20500 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 2, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Talib Smith, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-252-1 ______________________________ Before Willett, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Talib Smith pleaded guilty to kidnapping and carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a) and 2119. He argues on appeal that the district court plainly and reversibly erred by counting his two diversionary dispositions from juvenile court as prior sentences and assessing criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c). He contends that the error affected his substantial rights and asks this court to exercise its discretion to correct the Case: 25-20500 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2026

No. 25-20500 error. The Government agrees that the district court erred and that resentencing is warranted.

We agree that the district court plainly erred. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(f).

Because Smith was sentenced under the incorrect advisory guidelines range and the district court was silent as to what it might have done had it considered the correct range, the error affected his substantial rights. See Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 201 (2016). We exercise our discretion to correct the error. See United States v. Stoglin, 34 F.4th 415, 420- (5th Cir. 2022); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 145 (2018).

Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND the case for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.