United States v. Smith

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3842 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:16-cr-00279-TSZ-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DAJUAN SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Dajuan Smith appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence to run consecutively to Smith’s state- court sentence, to be followed by a 4-month supervised release term. Smith’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 * 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). (1967), stating that there are no non-frivolous arguments for appeal. Smith has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The government has filed an answering brief. Our independent review of the record, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no non-frivolous arguments to be made on direct appeal. Smith’s pro se contentions are unavailing. First, even assuming Smith lacked notice before the sentencing hearing that the government intended to seek a consecutive sentence, he was not entitled to receive such notice. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2). Second, the sentence is substantively reasonable under the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and extent of the admitted violations. See United States v. Taylor, 153 F.4th 934, 943-44 (9th Cir. 2025). Finally, any challenge to the calculation of sentencing credits must first be addressed to the Bureau of Prisons and, if that request is denied, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. See United States v. Cabrera, 83 F.4th 729, 740 (9th Cir. 2023). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 25-3842