Full Opinion

Case: 26-10538 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 26-10538 October 26, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Robert Lynn Bell, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:93-CR-302-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Robert Bell, federal prisoner #24923-077, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his appeal of the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)- (1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He is serving a 240-month sen- tence for armed carjacking. His IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because he will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. Taylor, * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 26-10538 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2026 No. 26-10538 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). In his motion for compassionate release, Bell contended that there were extraordinary and compelling circumstances for his release. Specifi- cally, he asserted that the guideline that the district court used at sentencing to depart upwardly and make his federal sentence run consecutive to his state sentence, U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3, had been deleted by the Sentencing Commission in 2025 by Amendment 836 to the Guidelines. In his IFP brief, Bell abandons that argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Bell does, nevertheless, claim, in his IFP brief, that extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist for his compassionate release insofar as he is 60 years old, he has been continuously incarcerated for 33 years, and he has never received a disciplinary report during his incarceration. But Bell fails to demonstrate that those circumstances are either extraordinary or compelling. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 186 (5th Cir. 2023); see also 28 U.S.C. § 944(t); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d), p.s. Accordingly, he has shown no arguable abuse of discretion in the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate re- lease. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Bell has not made an arguable showing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion on the basis that he did not pre- sent extraordinary and compelling circumstances, we need not reach his arguments as to the district court’s 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). Based on the foregoing, Bell’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 2