FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10285126
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Smith

No. 10285126 · Decided November 27, 2024
No. 10285126 · Ninth Circuit · 2024 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 27, 2024
Citation
No. 10285126
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2294 D.C. No. 6:16-cr-00002-DLC-1 Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM* TRENT SCENTAIL SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 20, 2024** Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Trent Scentail Smith appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). affirm. Smith contends that he presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and that the district court failed to apprehend or consider his arguments. The record reflects, however, that the district court understood and considered Smith’s arguments, including his arguments regarding the alleged racial disparity reflected in his sentence and the alleged delays in diagnosis and treatment for his medical conditions. The district court reasonably concluded that Smith’s medical conditions were not extraordinary and compelling reasons for release because they are being adequately treated by the Bureau of Prisons. The court also did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature of the offense and Smith’s significant criminal history, weighed against release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses its discretion only where its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). AFFIRMED. 2 24-2294
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Smith in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 27, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10285126 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →