USA v. Finch et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America, 	Crim. No. 21-157(6) (PAM/ECW)
Plaintiff,
v. 	ORDER
Daniel Richard Thomas,
Defendant.
___________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Daniel Richard Thomas’s pro se
Motions for an extension of time and to appoint counsel. (Docket Nos. 498, 499.) Thomas
seeks an additional 20 days to file a reply to his motion for compassionate release. 	The
Court finds that an extension is warranted.
Thomas also asks that the Court appoint counsel on his behalf, but he provides no
reason to support his request. In any event, the United States Constitution does not provide
a right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings after a direct appeal. See United States
v. Meeks, 971 F.3d 830, 833–34 (8th Cir. 2020). 	Because Thomas’s motion for
compassionate release constitutes such a post-conviction proceeding, he is not entitled to
assistance of counsel. See United States v. Farah, Crim. No. 18-114, 2022 WL 4585689,
at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2022) (Wright, J.) (denying motion for appointment of counsel
on a compassionate-release motion). Thus, the Court denies his request.
CASE 0:21-cr-00157-PAM-ECW Doc. 500 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Thomas’s Motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 498) is GRANTED;
2. 	Thomas’s reply for his motion for compassionate release is due on December
22, 2025; and
3. 	Thomas’s Motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 499) is DENIED.
Dated: November 26, 2025 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:21-cr-00157-PAM-ECW Doc. 500 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 2