Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The federal-circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules. The court’s decision was based on the appellant’s failure to file the required Notice of Unrepresented Person Appearance form and the failure to file the brief mandated by Federal Circuit Rule 31(d) within the permitted time. As a result, the notice of appeal is vacated and the case is closed without review of the underlying merits.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

Docket: 8:24-cv-00227-SVW

The ninth-circuit dismissed the appeal filed by defendants Klein, Kimura London and White LLP, and Becker regarding the district court’s order remanding their claims to state court, holding that such remand orders are unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) regardless of whether the remand was based on a procedural defect or a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects, ruling that the bankruptcy court properly exercised both core and ancillary jurisdiction over the remaining claims against other defendants because the allegations arose exclusively within the context of the bankruptcy case and were necessary to effectuate the bankruptcy court’s decree under a retained jurisdiction stipulation. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against the appellants, finding no abuse of discretion in determining that their motion for clarification was frivolous given the clarity of the remand order. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to carry out the remand of the specific claims to state court while the remaining bankruptcy-related issues proceed under the affirmed lower court rulings.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The fifth-circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing counsel’s Anders brief and the record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, applying the standard established in Anders v. California and United States v. Flores. Consequently, counsel was excused from further responsibilities, and the case was dismissed pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding of removability and denying Hector Fuentes-Ramos’s applications for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. The court held that Fuentes-Ramos is ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.160(1)(a), (3)(c) constitutes a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Relying on the precedent set in *Diaz-Boyzo v. Blanche*, the court determined that the Oregon statute is divisible and specifically describes a crime of child abuse, rejecting Fuentes-Ramos’s arguments based on *State v. Yong* and *State v. Glaspey* which the court found did not establish divisibility or alter the statutory interpretation regarding harm to children. Additionally, the court ruled that the lack of hearing date-and-time information in the Notice to Appear was not a jurisdictional defect but merely a claims-processing rule under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b) that was cured by subsequent notice provided to the petitioner. As a result, Fuentes-Ramos remains subject to removal proceedings and is barred from the requested forms of relief.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The fifth-circuit dismissed the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction, holding that it could not review the district court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s habeas corpus application because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that underlying judgment. The court further ruled that while the petitioner timely appealed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court was defective as a procedural-only COA. Applying the standard set forth in *Slack v. McDaniel* and Fifth Circuit precedent, the court declined to issue a valid COA because the petitioner could not satisfy the statutory requirements necessary to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion debatable or wrong. Consequently, the court vacated the defective COA, dismissed the appeal, and denied the petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The Fifth Circuit granted the appointed attorney’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the record and finding no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the case presented no valid grounds for appeal under *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*. While acknowledging the defendant’s responses regarding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, the court determined the record was insufficiently developed to adjudicate these claims on direct appeal, declining to consider them without prejudice to collateral review. Consequently, the court denied the defendant’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel and dismissed the case pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 42.2, leaving all other pending motions denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

Docket: 4:21-cv-00486-MW-MAF

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the estate’s civil rights action against federal prison officials, holding that no implied cause of action exists under *Bivens* for the claims brought. The court applied the two-step framework established by the Supreme Court in *Ziglar v. Abbasi* and *Egbert v. Boule*. First, the court determined that Carrin’s claims arose in a “new context” distinct from the three existing *Bivens* precedents (*Bivens*, *Davis*, and *Carlson*). While the Eighth Amendment claim involved medical care similar to *Carlson*, the factual context differed significantly because Carrin’s Hepatitis C condition progressed over a year requiring long-term treatment, whereas *Carlson* involved an acute asthma attack occurring over a single day. Second, the court found that the existence of the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) constituted a “special factor” counseling against the expansion of the *Bivens* remedy. Under current precedent, the mere presence of an alternative remedial structure designed to address constitutional violations in federal prisons is sufficient to preclude a *Bivens* suit, regardless of whether that alternative provides monetary damages or was actually utilized by the plaintiff before his death. Consequently, the estate’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments were barred, and the case remains dismissed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing the asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims of Jhony Willian Caballero-Chavez and his family. The court held that the agency properly found the proposed particular social group—defined as “Honduran youth who have been subjected to harassment, robbery and persecution by the gangs and who have rejected the gang member way of life based upon their personal moral opposition”—was not cognizable because it was circularly defined by the persecution itself, lacked definable boundaries, and failed to meet the requirements of particularity and social distinctness. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusion that the petitioners failed to demonstrate they were actually members of this group or had suffered past harassment, robbery, or persecution, noting their fear was general rather than based on specific targeted harm. Because the petitioners could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution required for asylum, they were also ineligible for withholding of removal, which carries a heavier burden of proof. Finally, the court affirmed that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief, as the record did not show it was more likely than not that the petitioners would be tortured or that the Honduran government would acquiesce in such torture. Consequently, the petition is denied and the BIA’s order dismissing their applications for relief remains in effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

Docket: 8:24-cv-00227-SVW

The Ninth Circuit dismissed in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction, affirmed the district court’s judgment in all other respects, and remanded the case with instructions to carry out the remand order. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) to review the district court’s order directing the bankruptcy court to remand specific claims to state court, as such remand orders are generally unreviewable on appeal regardless of whether they are based on procedural defects or a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Regarding the remaining issues, the court affirmed that the bankruptcy court properly exercised subject-matter jurisdiction over “core” claims arising from the bankruptcy petition and ancillary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement stipulation retaining jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court affirmed the imposition of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 sanctions against the appellants, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding their motion for rehearing frivolous because the underlying remand order was clear on its terms and did not require clarification.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-23

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a 60-month prison sentence on Steven Whitesell for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, rejecting his challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the upward variance from the recommended Guidelines range of 27 to 33 months. The court applied a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, reviewing whether the district court failed to consider relevant factors, gave weight to improper factors, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The appellate court held that the district court acted within its discretion by justifying the variance based on Whitesell’s underrepresented criminal history, specifically his lengthy record of violent offenses including domestic assault and substance abuse issues, while appropriately discounting youthful indiscretions committed before age 24. Consequently, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri is affirmed, leaving the 60-month sentence in place.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.